New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer excoriated the controversial Senate energy bill today, calling the legislation an "evil stew" of industry tax breaks and environmental rollbacks.
Schumer, who joined the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the National Research Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen in a hastily assembled press conference in the Dirkson Senate Office Building, bemoaned the lack of "breakthrough thinking" needed after the September 11 attacks and the California blackouts. "I can't believe that at this time we are passing this bill," he said. "If someone came down from Mars and looked at our bill, and looked at our situation, they would scratch their heads in amazement."
The Senate energy package is expected to pass overwhelmingly this evening, and will proceed to conference with the corresponding House bill passed last summer. Environmental groups agree that of the two packages, the House bill packs the most devastating punch to green interests. But both bills are dismal, say enviros, and neither contributes much to progressive energy causes like renewable energy and fuel efficiency standards -- losses that won't be magically regained in conference.
"You can't make a silk purse out of a two sow's ears," said Sierra Club legislative director Debbie Sease, "and you cannot hope to get a good energy policy by blending the flawed Senate energy bill with the even worse House energy bill."
Schumer agreed. "This is the sad high water mark of this bill," he said.
While the Senate packet, unlike the House's, does not allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), it still hands out billions (albeit not as much as the House does) in "incentives" to the coal, oil, and nuclear industries. Environmental and consumer groups also angrily accuse lawmakers of inserting several environmental rollbacks, including weakening the Safe Drinking Water Act, exempting pickup trucks from any future increases in fuel economy standards, lowering environmental standards for hydroelectric dams, and insuring new nuclear reactors against liability in case of a nuclear accident.
The legislation does give a few nods to environmental causes, but enviros say the costs far outweigh any meager gains the package has to offer. They hope, in the words of Public Citizen's Joan Claybrook, to see both bills "sink under their own deadly weight."
Schumer refused to say Democratic leadership botched the legislation, but did mention the influence of powerful energy lobbies, combined with a seeming inability to think outside the box.
"We need a Manhattan Project on energy," he said. "This bill is not even close." He added that the Senate legislation allocates no money for research projects to "find out how to become independent of fossil fuels."
When asked whether he would filibuster, Schumer replied that the bill has too much support, and his opponents could easily find the 60 votes needed to override it. But this won't be the last we hear about energy, he predicts. "The energy crisis will get worse, electricity prices will go up, and we'll go back to the drawing board in a few years with our tails between our legs," he said.