House OKs Energy Bill, Drilling in Arctic Refuge

Handing President Bush a huge victory on a signature issue, the House voted late Wednesday to permit oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a comprehensive energy bill containing $33 billion in tax breaks to boost production and encourage conservation.

The 510-page measure was approved, 240 to 189, after 12 hours of debate. Before casting the final vote shortly after 9 p.m. PDT, the House rejected a proposal to substantially increase the gas mileage of sport-utility vehicles, settling instead for a more modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards.

The vote to keep the Arctic refuge drilling provision in the energy bill was 223 to 206, with 36 Democrats and one independent joining 186 Republicans to support the president’s proposal. But the plan faces tough opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where opponents have threatened a filibuster to kill it. “It will never pass the Senate,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said after the vote.

The bill’s passage signals Congress’ intent to press ahead with its first comprehensive energy legislation in nearly a decade. The campaign has continued even though the crisis atmosphere of early 2001 has largely been replaced by a sense of relief now that energy prices are falling across the country and the lights have not gone out lately in California.

A White House statement issued earlier Wednesday commended the House for “its action in developing comprehensive and balanced national energy legislation that is largely consistent with the administration’s national energy plan.” The measure includes many elements of the plan drafted by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as a number of provisions the White House didn’t ask for.

The administration insisted the legislation is still urgently needed, crisis or no crisis. “It is no small threat to America that the amount of oil we import from foreign nations is almost twice what it was in 1973,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said.

The bill will go to the Senate, where the Democratic majority is expected to push to scale back Bush’s $1.35-trillion tax cut or reduce spending elsewhere to pay for the energy tax incentives. The Senate is expected to take up its own comprehensive bill in September, which is likely to put more emphasis on conservation measures and less on production. Both chambers also are drafting bills dealing with electricity, nuclear power and other energy issues not addressed in the first measures.

Democrats and environmentalists characterized the House bill as heavily tilted toward production and said its tax breaks threaten to siphon Medicare and Social Security trust funds if the federal surplus continues to shrink. “They’re about to build their oil rigs on top of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). GOP lawmakers disputed the Democrats’ claims.

The bill also was criticized by California Democratic lawmakers, who lost floor votes Wednesday on amendments that would have imposed stronger electricity price controls and spared the state from a federal mandate to begin adding ethanol to gasoline.

“This is not a balanced bill,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). “This is a special interest bill. It’s a reward for the campaign contributions of the energy industry. And boy, are they getting a good return on their money.”

But Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the GOP point man on energy legislation, said Americans are “facing energy challenges that we simply cannot ignore any longer.”

‘This Is No Ordinary Land’

The vote to permit drilling in the Arctic refuge came after weeks of intense lobbying on both sides of the divisive issue. Among California lawmakers, Reps. Joe Baca of Rialto and Calvin M. Dooley of Visalia were the only Democrats who supported drilling in the refuge. Rep. Stephen Horn of Long Beach was the only California Republican who voted against it. (Democrat Pete Stark of Hayward did not vote.)

Pressure to approve the drilling provision was applied by members of Bush’s Cabinet and the Teamsters Union, which sees it as a source of future jobs. Environmentalists lobbied hard against the plan, saying it would damage the pristine wilderness and endanger several species, including herds of Porcupine River caribou that arrive every spring to give birth.

“This is no ordinary land,” Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) said of the wildlife refuge. “This is a cathedral of nature.” Added Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.): “We should not put a mustache on the ‘Mona Lisa.’ ”

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) countered: “This oil we must have for this nation . . . so Saddam Hussein cannot control the market, cannot drive up gasoline prices.”

Bush has advocated oil and gas exploration within 1.5 million acres of the 19.6-million-acre refuge in the northeast corner of Alaska. His House allies said that any resulting production facilities would be limited to 2,000 acres. Proponents contend that modern technology would prevent environmental damage.

The government estimates there are 6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the tundra; opponents say the amount that can be extracted economically would meet the nation’s energy needs for only about six months.

Assailing the vote, Jay Watson, California-Nevada regional director for the Wilderness Society, said: “The House has repudiated 20 years of Arctic protection and turned its back on the wildest corner of our nation.”

On another contentious issue, Democrats from auto-producing states joined a majority of Republicans to vote against requiring sport-utility vehicles, minivans and pickups to achieve a 27.5 miles per gallon average by 2007, up from 20.7 mpg today. Passenger cars already are required to meet a 27.5 mpg standard.

The amendment to raise the “corporate average fuel efficiency,” or CAFE, standard for SUVs to the same level as cars was defeated, 269 to 160. The bill calls for a 5-billion-gallon reduction in gasoline use by SUVs, minivans and pickups over the next six years. Critics say that standard would raise gas mileage by only about 1 mpg.

The White House cautioned that efforts to “arbitrarily set new CAFE standards could impact safety and endanger lives.”

But the administration said in its statement that it supports increasing automobile fuel economy, citing a study released this week demonstrating that “we can achieve significant fleet fuel economy increases, without costing lives, by incorporating existing and new technologies over time.”

Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the 5-billion-gallon savings in the bill is “only a floor” that regulators can build on and added that it represents the first improvement in vehicle fuel economy in years.

Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan warned that stricter rules would increase traffic deaths, raise the price of popular SUVs and cost the U.S. auto industry jobs.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is pushing for tougher standards, called the House vote a “blow” but added, “The battle is far from over. . . . The issue will be addressed in the Senate, where I believe we are gaining momentum.”

The Securing America’s Future Energy Act advances a number of Bush’s energy initiatives, from $2 billion for research on technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants to tax incentives for purchases of hybrid gas-electric cars and development of alternative sources of power, such as wind and sunlight.

The measure would provide $33.5 billion in tax incentives over 10 years, including several breaks for energy producers that were not included in the energy plan sent to Congress by ex-oilmen Bush and Cheney.

Although California has become a symbol of the push for urgent action on energy legislation, the state’s Democratic representatives complained that there is little in the bill specifically for the Golden State.

California Loses Vote on Gas Additive

A measure backed by California’s 52-member House delegation to allow the state to produce gasoline without ethanol as long as the fuel meets anti-pollution rules was soundly defeated, by a 300-125 vote, in the face of strong opposition from corn state lawmakers.

California is moving to phase out methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, a gas additive credited with helping to reduce smog but blamed for polluting ground water. State officials say that if they are forced to use ethanol as a substitute, it will increase prices at the pump. Ethanol advocates dispute that.

A measure to impose hard controls on wholesale electricity prices in the West also was rejected.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-San Diego), holding up a loaf of bread, said it would cost $19.99 if its price went up as much as has the cost of electricity in California.

“What does this bill do for us in California?” Filner said. “Nothing but crumbs.”

“If there is a Texas equivalent of a Bronx cheer, that is what the president is giving to California again,” complained Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose).

Tensions between California and Texas lawmakers surfaced during the debate. Texas lawmakers sought to amend the bill to provide for federal regulation of gas pipelines within California. But the measure was defeated after California lawmakers attacked it as payback for Gov. Gray Davis’ charges that Texas energy companies have gouged California.

GOP leaders said California, like all states, will benefit from the legislation.

“Where did California go wrong?” asked Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah). “California refused to increase production.”

The bill would authorize an increase in energy assistance for those with low incomes, from $2 billion this year to as much as $3.4 billion. California’s share could increase from $63 million to $201 million, although the exact amount would be subject to annual budget deliberations. The bill also would authorize up to $200 million for cleanup of MTBE contamination, an acute problem in California.

Although the dreaded summer of electricity turmoil in California has failed to materialize and energy prices around the country have fallen, energy remains politically hot in the closely divided House.

The administration dispatched Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton to Capitol Hill to rally GOP lawmakers before the vote.

It was no coincidence that the first energy bill emphasized conservation--a calculated GOP response to criticism that the administration energy plan emphasized production.

The measure, among other things, would authorize states to permit solo drivers of alternative fuel or hybrid cars into carpool lanes, offer tax credits of up to $2,000 for energy efficient improvements to homes and credits for manufacturing of energy-saving appliances. It would expand the federal “Energy Star” program to give consumers information on more energy-efficient products. And it would require the Department of Energy to set new efficiency standards for TV sets and other products.

MORE INSIDE

Arsenic: Senate orders tougher limit for water supplies. A22