Dave Reichert likes to say he is an independently minded. He wants you to think that unlike the rest of the Republicans in Washington, DC, he is not captured by the oil industry. In fact, he
practically says as much:
I stood up to Big Oil, demanding that oil companies pay to clean-up the harmful gas additive MTBE
He used the same line during the recent debate with Darcy Burner. He said that taxpayers should not be on the hook for cleaning up the MTBE contamination that big oil is responsible for.
MTBE is a nasty fuel additive which is very costly to clean up once it gets in ground water and surface water, and holding oil companies responsible for the damage done by their products makes sense. Reichert taking this position ought to be popular in the district. There is only one problem. It's not Reichert's true position.
First, the world according to Reichert. This is
the amendment Reichert wants you to focus on:
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment sought to delete MTBE from section 1502 of the bill which provides MTBE with a "safe harbor" and provides product liability immunity to the producers of MTBE.
It was an amendment to H.R. 6 offered on April 21, 2005. Sure enough, Reichert voted for the amendment.
Now, to put that in context. Here are the two important things he does not want you to focus on. One note of caution -- If you wish to believe that Reichert is a conscience-driven independent (Seattle Times, I'm talking to you), please read no further. If on the other hand, you want to get the full picture of Reichert's brief - but deeply cynical - record in Congress, read on.
1. Reichert supported it, after he opposed it. The Republican leadership did not need Reichert's vote to kill the amendment. The amendment was voted down 213-219. Reichert has demonstrated that when the oil industry or George Bush really need his vote, they get it. In this case, they didn't need his vote. The amendment was defeated, and the MTBE product liability provision remained in H.R. 6. And you know what? Reichert voted for the bill anyway. That's right. Reichert opposed the MTBE liability waiver, before he supported it. But now he opposes it again, I guess. Make sure you catch him on the right day.
Now, some may argue that once the amendment failed to pass Reichert had to look at the bill as a whole, weigh the pluses and minuses, and vote accordingly. They might argue that Reichert continued to oppose the MTBE provision, but there were so many other good provisions in H.R. 6 that he had to support it anyway.
Look at the bill in total and this argument falls apart. Did Reichert see that the bill contained an exemption for Halliburton from the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject diesel fuel and other chemicals in drinking water supplies? Did he note that the bill exempted construction of oil and gas facilities from the Clean Water Act? Did he, by chance, see that the Clean Air Act was significantly weakened by delaying deadlines for cleaning up polluted cities? He must have known that the bill opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling (although I could have sworn I heard someone say that Reichert opposed that). The environmentalists didn't seem too crazy about these provisions. They seemed to think that the bill was a giveaway to the oil industry. They seemed to have a concern about giving $10 billion to the oil industry.
Of course, Reichert probably opposed all those provisions too before he supported them. He may oppose them again now. Who knows?
In the end though, Reichert voted for a bill that opened the Arctic refuge to drilling, exempted the oil industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, weakened the Clean Air Act, lavished the oil industry with $10 billion, and shielded them from liability costs for contaminating water supplies with MTBE. That's not exactly what I'd call, "standing up to big oil."
2. Reichert has supported additional legislation to force taxpayers to pay oil companies for cleaning up their MTBE contamination.
On Dec. 8, 2005, the House of Representatives considered H.R.4297. This was an opportunity for Reichert to again clearly put down his position on whether taxpayers should be paying to clean up oil company contamination. Sec. 201 of this bill allows remediation of petroleum products to be expensed under the federal tax code. A lot of jargon there, but the House Ways and Means Committee helpfully issued a report to explain what this means. It's there on page 40:
Taxpayers may elect to treat certain environmental remediation expenditures that would otherwise be chargeable to capital account as deductible in the year paid or incurred.
For those of you who aren't tax lawyers, in this case, "taxpayers" means "oil companies" and this provision allows oil companies who clean up contamination caused by their petroleum products, including MTBE, to deduct the costs from their taxes. In a nutshell, this legislation boldly says to ExxonMobil, can the American taxpayer please help you out with those clean up costs?
Reichert voted for it.
Here is the timeline, for those of you keeping score at home:
* At 4:05pm on April 21, 2005 - Reichert votes for oil companies to pay for their own cleanups.
* At 4:38pm on April 21, 2005 - Reichert votes for taxpayers to pay for oil company cleanups.
* At 3:21pm on December 8, 2005 - Reichert again votes for taxpayers to pay for oil company cleanups.
* October 10, 2006 - Reichert says he "stands up to big oil" and opposes legislation to make taxpayers pay for oil company cleanups.
You don't have to be too clever to realize that taxes are a zero-sum game. When Reichert votes to give ExxonMobil a break on their taxes, who do you think makes up the shortfall? Of course, it will be you and me. This is one reason that Reichert's argument that Darcy Burner will raise taxes is so shameful.
Dave Reichert does not "stand up to big oil." If anything, his record shows that he "stands up for big oil." Reichert is misinforming the people of WA-8 about his real record on MTBE. Will they fall for it?
Darcy Burner is the better alternative.