House Energy Bill Markup Begins

Light & Medium Truck, May 2005 by O'Driscoll, Mary

The House Energy and Commerce Committee got down to business on the comprehensive energy bill April 6, with the start of the markup process that originally was scheduled to end the next day. This process was instead extended through the following week, so that a congressional delegation could travel to Rome for the April 8 funeral of Pope John Paul II.

At press time, the revised committee schedule put the energy bill on the House floor the week of April 18. The Resources and Ways and Means committees were also expected to have completed their energy markups by then so their provisions could be added to the final product.

But even as the House was prepared to move, prospects for quick action in the Senate appeared to dim April 5. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested his committee would not act on tax bills, including the energy tax package, until the latter half of this year - a development that could hurt or even derail a comprehensive bill in the Senate.

That prompted a strong response from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who with ranking committee member Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), is drafting a bipartisan energy bill he hopes to get out of the Senate in early summer.

"I want to get it done quick," Domenici told reporters April 5. "We can't have it out there for six months."

Domenici would not say whether such a delay would hurt the bill's Senate chances. Domenici said he will do all he can to get Grassley to speed things up. Calls to Grassley's office seeking comment were not returned.

House Markup Process

With opening statements out of the way, Energy and Commerce Committee members started working April 6 on amendments to the committee print version of the energy bill, which closely mirrors the House energy bill package approved in 2003.

Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) told reporters April 5 that he expects lawmakers to offer between 70 and 80 amendments and anticipates some spirited debate on the following: legal protections for producers of the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE); language in the bill that gives federal regulators authority over siting liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals; and plans to strike provisions in the committee print that require transmission customers, who benefit from upgrades to the nation s power grid to pay for those upgrades themselves.

And Barton said he will not wait for Congress to pass a budget, which would give the committee a ceiling for how much money it can spend on various energy programs and tax incentive packages that are considered essential to passage of an energy bill.

Instead, the House energy bill will have no price tag attached to it - though Barton refused to say how that will happen other than to assert, "I'm a good chairman and I know the rules." Spending and tax incentives, he said, can be worked out in conference.

But that statement belies Barton's displeasure with the White House's proposal that the energy bill cost $6.7 billion.

Barton said he recently met with high-level White House officials.

"I told them I'm not happy with the low numbers with the energy bill," he said. Barton refused to say how much above $6.7 billion he would go, though it would be enough "to get our job done."

The $6.7 billion figure reflects the across-the-board federal budget cuts and freezes designed to help reduce the massive federal budget deficit. Lawmakers generally concede that the figure is low, but note that whatever the final cost of the energy bill this year, it will not be as high as the $30 billion price tag of the energy bill that nearly passed Congress in November 2003.

No Surprises in Opening Statements

Opening statements April 5 produced no surprises. Generally, Democrats oppose many provisions of the bill and, although pleased that they get a full committee markup, they remain unhappy that they did not get issue-specific hearings to address controversial topics or those matters that are new to this years energy debate.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans, to a member, expressed happy support for the bill, though a few outlined specific opposition to some provisions.

For instance, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) said she was displeased that the American Indian energy provisions that outline development of energy projects on Indian lands were gone from the bill. She is also concerned about language relating to FERC, regulation of rural electric cooperatives.

And although several members of the committee invoked the current recordhigh oil prices in calling for passage of the bill, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) was the only one to assert that passage of the energy bill will do virtually nothing to address today's high price situation.

Committee ranking member John Dingell (D-Mich.) called the bill "flawed on many levels" and was the first of many Democrats to note that the U.S. Energy Information Administration evaluated virtually the same bill in 2003 and found that it would increase U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil and would raise energy prices by 2%.