With gas prices hovering near $4/gallon, Democrats are trotting out fanciful “solutions” to temper the price of oil.

On Saturday, President rolled out a three-part plan to relieve Americans’ pain at the pump. The third part was the elimination of Big Oil “subsidies” (in fact, they are tax breaks, not subsidies). This doesn’t make any sense. The point of the tax breaks to Big Oil is to decrease the cost of production. That is, they make oil cheaper to extract. Removing these “subsidies” will in no way decrease the price of gas.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are blaming evil “speculators” for bidding up the price of oil. This is utter malarkey. The price of oil is dictated by a global market.  Ill-defined “speculators” are a straw man.

Removing Big Oil’s “subsidies” and prosecuting “speculators” are empty political gimmicks of the sort that the 2008 version of Obama campaigned against. (So much for “Change,” right?) I suspect that the President and Senate Democrats are relying on these bogus non-solutions because, otherwise, they’d have to acknowledge that the price of oil is a function of supply and demand. And if they concede that the market, and not “subsidies” or “speculators,” is to blame for high oil prices, then they’d also have to acknowledge that increasing supply would decrease the price. That is, they’d have to admit that “drill, baby, drill” works. Of course, they don’t want to do that, because doing so would upset their environmentalist base.

This is why I’m suspicious of the President’s apparent pro-drilling posture during his Saturday address. In addition to prosecuting “speculators” and removing Big Oil “subsidies,” President Obama promised to expand domestic production. Here’s what he said,

Second, we should increase safe and responsible oil production here at home.  Last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003*.  But I believe that we should expand oil production in America – even as we increase safety and environmental standards.

To do this, I am directing the Department of Interior to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, while respecting sensitive areas, and to speed up the evaluation of oil and gas resources in the mid and south Atlantic.  We plan to lease new areas in the Gulf of Mexico as well, and work to create new incentives for industry to develop their unused leases both on and offshore.

*[The President is being disingenuous. Expanded oil production in America has been driven primarily by production from the huge Bakken Formation in North Dakota.  And this was made possible by the fact that the oil is underneath private land. Were the Bakken Formation on federal land, it would have been locked up by the Obama Administration.]

The absence of specifics in the President’s pro-production plan gives me pause. I’m not the only one who harbors this concern. The pro-drilling editorial board at the New Orleans Times Picayune is also waiting to see real action before it believes the President.

Environmentalist lobbying outfits run some of the sleaziest political attack ads in the business. Their stuff would make Lee Atwater grin. My colleague Marlo Lewis wrote an excellent, extensive analysis of one such sleazy ad, from the folks at Move On. Another colleague, Chris Horner, caught Greenpeace apparatchiks rummaging through his garbage, no doubt looking for attack fodder.

Interestingly, industry refuses to defend itself from these black arts PR tactics. “Big Oil,” for example, runs silly ads denigrating its core business, like BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign and Chevron’s “I will use less energy” commercials. Then there’s “Big Gas,” which promotes itself by talking about “Dirty Coal.” (Sigh.)

But that’s a separate issue. This post is about how the greens’ sleaze tactics are backfiring in Massachusetts. In that State, the League of Women Voters is running ugly advertisements that essentially equate baby-abuse with Senator Scott Brown’s vote for excellent legislation that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, there’s nothing new about this zero class, wrongheaded attack analogy. Move On made the same insinuation in a similar, recent advertisement.

A cursory internet search suggests that these advertisements are dishonest. The League of Women Voters/Move On’s accusation is based on a supposed link between increased temperatures and asthma attacks. I googled “asthma+attacks+U.S.+peak+months” and, at the top of my search results, was this 2008 report from the Minnesota Department of Health, from which the first sentence reads,

“In Minnesota, asthma hospitalization rates follow seasonal patterns. The greatest number of hospitalizations is seen in the fall months, usually September, with a smaller peak in the spring. The lowest rates are generally seen in July.”

Maybe Minnesotans are not representative of American asthma patients, but if they are, then this whole warming-asthma link seems dubious to this non-scientist.

Sen. Scott Brown, who deserves kudos for his Senate vote to rein in the EPA’s power grab, decided to make an issue of these unfounded, underhanded attacks. He wrote an oped to defend himself. Regarding his Senate vote, he correctly noted,

“Burdening our businesses with even more bureaucracy will kill jobs, and that is the last thing our economy can afford right now when we are barely starting to recover.”

For a detailed discussion of why Sen. Brown is right, click here. As for the League of Women Voter’s tactics, Sen. Brown wrote,

“By misrepresenting one of my many votes and running a shameful attack ad, the LWV has put its reputation at risk. It has gone into the gutter and become part of the negative politics that voters have rightly rejected.”

Sen. Brown is a politician, so his decision to politicize the League of Women Voters’s sleazeball ads was politically based, likely backed by polling data. This apparent blowback against the League of Women Voters is the subject of a Boston Globe column today, by Joan Vennochi. Here’s the gist,

“But the anti-Brown attack ad launched recently by the League of Women Voters isn’t going to help. It may thrill the liberal base, but it also threatens to chill the independent swing vote that both a Republican and a Democratic candidate need to win in Massachusetts.

Why is Brown drawing attention to the League’s ad a full 18 months before election day? Not because it hurts him, but because it helps him. It reminds people of the unflattering “League of Women Vultures’’ moniker that detractors like to use to describe the organization. And, its depiction of a coughing, rasping child who is suffering because of Brown’s vote against air pollution standards illustrates the same old stereotypical scare tactics that turn off voters of all ideological persuasions.”

Hear, Hear!

House Passes Offshore Drilling Bills

The House of Representatives this week and last passed three bills to force the Obama Administration to increase offshore oil and gas production.  H. R. 1229 passed by a vote of 263 to 163, with 28 Democrats voting Yes. H. R. 1230 passed last week by 266 to 149, with 33 Democrats in favor.  And H. R. 1231 passed the House 243 to 179, with the support of 21 Democrats.

All three bills were sponsored by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.  You can read brief committee summaries of what is in the bills here, here, and here.

Naturally, the White House opposes all three bills.  President Obama and his top energy and environmental officials support policies to raise gasoline and electricity prices for consumers.

Next week, the Senate may vote on a bill being pushed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to take away federal subsidies for the oil industry.  Nick Loris and Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation sort out what is and is not a subsidy in the Senate bill here.  Suffice it to say, the big ticket items are not subsidies to the oil and gas industry, but standard business deductions.  David Kreutzer, also of the Heritage Foundation, compares the subsidies that the oil industry gets to the immensely larger subsidies that the wind power industry gets.  No one claims that the Senate bill will lower gas prices.

Getting off the Boonedoggle Bandwagon

The first sign appeared this week that the burgeoning bandwagon in the House of Representatives to pass what I have called the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill is slowing down.  Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) removed his name as a co-sponsor of H. R. 1380, the NAT GAS Act (which stands for New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions).  Pearce deserves extra credit for doing this because the biggest industry in his southern New Mexico district is oil and natural gas production.

T. Boone Pickens wrote a letter published in the Wall Street Journal on 11th May in response to a devastating column by Holman Jenkins in the 7th May Journal.  Pickens writes that, “Since July 2008 I have spent more than $80 million of my own money…” to pass the Pickens Plan.  This $80 million figure does not include the many millions of dollars Pickens has contributed to Republican candidates and the Republican Party over the decades. If enacted, the bill would probably increase the value of Pickens’s natural gas holdings by several billion dollars.  So $80 million could turn out to be a very good investment.

The opponents of H. R. 1380, which include Freedom Action, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and Americans for Prosperity (all members of the Cooler Heads Coalition), have probably spent in the neighborhood of $800 to defeat the Pickens-Your-Pocket Plan.  That expenditure could save American taxpayers close to $10 billion in federal subsidies to the natural gas and natural gas vehicle manufacturing industries over the next five years.  That’s even better value for money.

New Hampshire Senate Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on energy rationing policy. Two months ago, the State House of Representatives passed HB 519, legislation that would withdraw New Hampshire from a regional energy-rationing scheme known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), by a 246 to 104 vote. At the time, it was widely thought that the Senate would quickly follow suit, as Republicans control the upper chamber. Governor John Lynch (D) promised to veto the bill, but Republicans hold a veto-proof majority in both chambers of the legislature.

Then the environmentalist lobby mobilized and frightened many members of the Senate. The bill was delayed. Last week, the Senate Natural Resources Committee voted against HB 519 companion legislation. This week, the full Senate, where Republicans enjoy a 2 to 1 majority, voted to remain in the RGGI.

Between the time this is written and the time you read it, gas prices will have undoubtedly risen again.  They have been on an upward spiral for months and not likely to drop long term without some bold, decisive action as was taken on July 14, 2008. Instead of encouraging the development of our own natural resources, politicians of both parties  are once again betting that we will not notice if they play the antibusiness card—but 2011 is not a year for politics as usual and the rules have changed. This is no longer a back-room game. It is the poker channel. People are watching.

With their cards close to the vest, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are bluffing. They want America’s citizens to believe their hand is filled with spending cuts—cut subsidies from big oil companies. Somehow we are supposed to think this will lower gas prices?

Part of their bluff is to use the term “subsidy”—which in the house-of-cards economy/debt crisis they’ve built translates to spending. Concerned Americans do not want more spending, they want cuts. We’ve anted up all we can. Politicians are betting we’ll fall for the deception.

But for those of us who are watching, the tell is there. The so-called “big oil companies” don’t get subsidies. They do get the same type of tax deductions on their expenses and some of their up-front costs that every industry gets. Their dramatic wins are in the headlines now. Loses are huge too—though usually not front page news. Last month, it was announced that Shell Oil had to scrap their Alaska drilling plans (which would have provided more domestic energy) due to an EPA decision to withhold permits. Shell had spent five years and $4 billion on plans to explore. Will the EPA reimburse them for their loss? No. But they will receive some tax benefits, the loss is held against their wins—just like every other business. They know they win some, they lose some. It is all factored into the game plan.

But who is the real loser? The American citizen who wants lower gas prices. If the cost of doing business is lower, and the resource development is encouraged, the savings is passed on at the pump. When costs continue to escalate and business is forced to fold their hand—even when it could be a full house, we lose.

The way the energy game is being played now is that the house always wins—with the house being government, not business. A company can, as Shell did, make big investments based on their hand as they see it (geology and seismic data indicates the gamble is worth it) and then the dealer calls the shots. Sorry.

Because we are playing dealer’s choice, other more expensive, less competent players get the advantage. Renewables do get subsidies—like $6 billion for the corn ethanol industry. Electric cars are subsidized to the tune of $7,500 for each vehicle sold—and this is just on the retail end. American taxpayers are forced to buy in even though we know we are drawing dead.

Next week, Harry Reid is dealing once again. He is expected to hold a vote on the Baucus plan which they claim will “end billions of dollars in wasteful tax breaks for large, multinational oil and gas companies while investing in cleaner and cheaper domestic energy sources.” The dealers are picking the winners and losers. If the above quote from Baucus’ website was honest, it would say that they are singling out one industry because it is currently making money (who will be next?) and giving money to more expensive energy sources.

If the game was fair, and we eliminated tax deductions and subsidies altogether—great! Then everyone would need to stand on their own merits in every industry. But that is not going to happen with this hand. We’ll need a different dealer.

But we, the American taxpayers, do not have to sit idly by and watch. We can let them know we are watching. We can participate. We can force politicians to play for us. It is our money they are playing with.

Call their bluff. The hand they are holding will increase the cost of doing business for America’s domestic energy providers and that will result in higher gas prices not lower. Who do they think they are fooling?

Politicians, like poker players, are known to have a few cards up their sleeve.

Known as the voice for energy, Marita Noon is the Executive Director at Energy Makes America Great Inc. the advocacy arm of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy—working to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom and the American way of life. She is a popular speaker, a frequent guest on television and radio, her commentaries have been published in newspapers, blogs and websites nationwide, and she has just completed her twentieth book: Take Away Energy, Take Away Freedom. Find out more at www.EnergyMakesAmericaGreat.org.

House Committee Acts To Stop President’s de facto Drilling Moratorium

The House Natural Resources Committee marked up three bills on Wednesday that would require the Obama Administration to stop its obstructive tactics and start producing more oil and natural gas from federal Outer Continental Shelf areas.  Committee Democrats dragged out the mark-up for nine hours by offering and insisting on recorded votes on a series of amendments to weaken or gut the three bills—H. R. 1229, 1230, and 1231.  None of their amendments was adopted.

It is expected that the House will pass all three bills in May.  Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) plans to introduce additional bills in the next few months to increase domestic oil and gas production on federal lands in Alaska and the Rocky Mountains as part of House Republicans’ American Energy Initiative.

House Leadership Tacitly Endorses Excellent EPA Strategy

Environment and Energy News reported this week that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not rule out attaching something like the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H. R. 910) to the bill to raise the federal debt ceiling.  H. R. 910 would block the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  It passed the House last week on a 255 to 172 vote, but failed as an amendment in the Senate on a 50 to 50 vote.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and main sponsor of H. R. 910, made similar remarks earlier in the week: “No debt limit is going to pass by itself. You’ll have to have some significant pieces with it.”

House Committee Counters Coal Crackdown

The House Energy and Commerce Committee held subcommittee hearings this week on the proposed coal ash rule and on the proposed utility, boiler, and cement Maximum Available Control Technology (or MACT) rules.

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) has introduced a bill, H. R. 1391, to deny EPA the authority to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  Coal ash has many industrial uses, including as a replacement for part of the Portland cement in concrete and in drywall.  Classifying coal ash as a hazardous waste would threaten its commercial use and thereby raise costs of producing coal-fired power.

It has been reported that bills will be introduced next month to block or delay EPA’s proposed three Clean Air Act MACT rules.  Each rule would have devastating economic effects.

For example, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oreg.) at the hearing raised the example in his district (and in my home county of Baker County, Oregon) of a cement plant that has spent $20 million to install technology to reduce mercury emissions by 95%.  Under the proposed cement MACT rule, the plant would be required to reduce mercury emissions by 98.5%.

Achieving the additional 3.5% reduction would be too expensive and therefore the plant will probably be shut down if the rule goes into effect.  With the closure of the National Forests to commercial timber production, the Ash Grove cement plant is the largest employer (after the taxpayer-funded Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and local school district) in the county.

The House of Representatives this afternoon passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a vote of 255 to 172.  Nineteen Democrats voted Yes.  No Republicans voted No.  This is a remarkable turnaround from the last Congress when on 26th June 2009 the House voted 219 to 212 to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Fred. Upton (R-Mich.), the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and thereby put a potentially huge indirect tax on American consumers and businesses.   Coal, oil, and natural gas produce carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, when burned.  Those three fuels provide over 80% of the energy used in America.  Thus regulating carbon dioxide emissions essentially puts the EPA in charge of running the U. S. economy.

This is just the first step in stopping the Obama Administration’s attempt to raise energy prices .  The House bill now heads to the Senate, where yesterday an attempt to add the Energy Tax Prevention Act (introduced in the Senate as S. 482 by Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma) as an amendment to another bill was defeated on a 50-50 vote.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s amendment would have required 60 votes to be attached to S. 493.  Four Democrats joined 46 Republicans in voting for the amendment–Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.  Senator Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote No.

The strong House vote in favor of the Energy Tax Prevention Act should build new momentum to pass it in the Senate later this year.  Of course, the White House has already issued a veto threat, which shows that President Obama is not interested in creating new jobs and restoring prosperity to America.  Congress has now rejected cap-and-tax resoundingly, but the President still hopes to achieve through backdoor regulation his goals of skyrocketing electric rates and gasoline prices at the $10 a gallon European level.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to debate and vote on final passage of H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act.  The Rules Committee is allowing the Democrats to offer twelve amendments to weaken or gut the bill.  (It is worth recalling that on 26th June 2009, the Democrats allowed only one Republican amendment and couldn’t even provide an accurate copy of the bill, since 300 pages had been added in the middle of the night, but the new sections hadn’t been put in their proper places in the 1200 page bill that had been released four days before.)  No Republican amendments to strengthen to the bill will be allowed.  The rule can be found here.  It is quite possible that the vote on final passage will be delayed until tomorrow.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled votes on amendments offered by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-MT), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) amendments to S. 493, a re-authorization bill for small business subsidies, for some time after 4 PM today.  The McConnell amendment is the Senate version of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482.  The other amendments are attempts to give some ground without blocking EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions permanently (that is, until Congress authorizes such regulations).  This shows how far the debate has shifted.  It appears that the three straddling amendments may each get fifteen to thirty votes.  It appears that the McConnell amendment (#183) will get 51 or perhaps even 52 votes, but will not be adopted because it is not a germane amendment and therefore requires 60 votes to survive a point of order.  All 47 Republicans are expected to vote for it plus Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mark Pryor (D-AR).  Maybe one more Democrat, such as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO).  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could of course still change his mind.

The White House yesterday sent a veto threat to the Hill yesterday.  The full statement can be found here, although this excerpt aptly summarizes the President’s position.

“If the President is presented with this legislation, which would seriously roll back the CAA authority, harm Americans’ health by taking away our ability to decrease carbon pollution, and undercut fuel efficiency standards that will save Americans money at the pump while decreasing our dependence on oil, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

This indicates two things: that passage is becoming a real possibility; and that the White House is sending a message that some House Democrats who want to get re-elected can vote for it in the knowledge that the White House is standing by to save them from the consequences.

After today’s votes, the next step will be to attach H. R. 910 / S. 482 to a vehicle that the President will have a hard time vetoing.  Did anyone say debt ceiling?

Update [5:45 PM]: The Senate Votes Are in

McConnell amendment (Inhofe’s Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482): 50 Yes, 50 No.

Rockefeller amendment: 12 Yes, 88 No.

Stabenow amendment: 7 Yes, 93 No.

Baucus amendment: 7 Yes, 93 No.

Democrats Voting Yes on the McConnell amendment:

Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Mark Pryor of Arkansas

Republicans Voting No on the McConnell amendment:

Susan Collins of Maine

House Ready To Pass Upton Bill Next Week

The House has scheduled H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, for floor debate and passage on Wednesday, 6th April.  This could still slip given the wrangling that is going on between the House and the Senate over the Continuing  Resolution to fund the federal government for the rest of FY 2011 after the current CR runs out on 8th April.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill will pass easily with over 250 votes.  That most likely includes all 241 Republicans and 12 to 20 Democrats.

The Rules Committee has not yet met to decide which amendments will be in order.  Conservative Republicans in the Republican Study Committee are considering offering several amendments to strengthen the bill.

H. R. 910 as marked up by the Energy and Commerce Committee prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but does not prohibit the Administration from using other existing statutes to regulate emissions.  Nor does it ban common law nuisance lawsuits against emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, manufacturers, railroads, airlines, and cement producers.

Thus one obvious amendment would be to ban common law nuisance suits.  The Supreme Court is currently considering such a case.  It may find that such suits may proceed, but even if it does not it could do so for the wrong reason—namely, that the EPA is regulating emissions and has thereby pre-empted common law.

Democrats led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) will undoubtedly offer some of the same silly, irrelevant grandstanding amendments that they offered in committee.  Waxman was reported this week as expressing confidence that the bill has no chance in the Senate.

That was certainly true of his Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress.  One significant difference is that Waxman-Markey barely passed the House, 219-212.  The Upton-Whitfield bill will pass by a much wider margin.

Moreover, cap-and-trade was swimming against strong public opposition, while blocking EPA’s attempt to achieve cap-and-trade through the regulatory backdoor is swimming with public opinion.  That’s why, for example, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is still undecided about voting for the McConnell amendment (which is identical to the Senate version of H. R. 910) in the Senate.  She doesn’t want to vote for it, but she’d like to be re-elected in 2012.

Will the Senate Ever Vote on the McConnell Amendment?

The Senate spent another week without voting on Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) amendment to block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or either of the two Democratic alternatives.  It is quite possible that there will be votes next week.  It is also quite possible that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will work out a deal with McConnell to dispose of many of the amendments to the underlying bill without votes and proceed to passage of the Small Business Innovation Research Re-Authorization Act.  Or Reid may keep stalling.

McConnell originally introduced his amendment (#183 if you’re keeping track) to S. 493 on 15th March.  It is identical to Senator James M. Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482, which is identical to the House bill of the same name, H. R. 910.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced an amendment to try to provide cover for fellow Democrats and thereby siphon support from McConnell’s amendment.  Rockefeller would delay EPA regulations for two years.

That hasn’t gained much support, so Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) introduced another amendment that would codify EPA regulation of major emitters, but permanently exempt minor emitters, such as small businesses, farms, and ranches.  The American Farm Bureau Federation’s strong opposition has discredited the case for Baucus’s amendment.

The wrangling has gone on for so long that a third Democratic amendment, combining some of the worst aspects of the two other Democratic amendments, was introduced this week by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).  Her amendment has fallen flat, too.

Should the Senate vote on the McConnell amendment, it looks to have the support of all 47 Republicans and three Democrats—Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.  That makes 50.  Because of the Senate rules on non-germane amendments, passage requires 60 votes.

That’s not going to happen, but I think it’s important that they get at least 51 votes.  That would demonstrate majority support and would give Reid problems in trying to keep it from being introduced as a germane amendment to other bills.  There appears to be only a couple more possible Democratic votes in favor—Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.  Both are up for re-election in 2012.

Senate Looks Ready to Vote on EPA Pre-Emption Amendment

The Senate now appears headed for a floor vote next week on S. 482, which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced on 15th March as an amendment to the Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer Programs Re-Authorization Act, S. 493.  S. 482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, was introduced by Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and is identical to H. R. 910, which the House plans to vote on as a free-standing bill next month.  McConnell’s amendment would block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until authorized by Congress.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) postponed a vote on the amendment last week when it became clear that it might come close to the 60 votes required for passage.  First, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced his bill to delay EPA regulations for two years as an amendment.  When that seemed to gain little support, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) introduced an amendment that would codify EPA regulations into law but permanently exempt from regulation smaller stationary sources that emit less than 75,000 tons per year.

The idea behind the Baucus amendment is that it peels off opposition from small businesses, farmers, and ranchers.  The American Farm Bureau Federation sent a strong letter to the Senate supporting Inhofe’s bill and McConnell’s amendment and opposing Baucus’s amendment.  The Farm Bureau points out that farmers and ranchers will still have to pay more for energy and fertilizer even if they are not directly regulated.

It looks like Reid is now thinking about having votes on all three amendments.  McConnell appears to have more than 50 votes for his amendment, but not the 60 required for passage, since the amendment is not germane to the bill and is thus subject to a point of order.  On the other hand, Reid may succeed in getting nearly all the Democrats to vote for the Baucus amendment.  So it could end up with close to 50 votes as well.

House Vote on EPA Pre-Emption Bill Put Off until Early April

The House of Representatives has tentatively scheduled floor debate on H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, for the week of 4th April.  Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill would block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until authorized by Congress to do so.  I think that the schedule could easily slip so that the bill doesn’t come to the floor until the week of 11th April, but the House’s Republican majority leadership still seems committed to getting final passage before leaving for the Holy Week and Easter recess, which begins on the 18th.

Environmental pressure groups are running radio and television ads in some districts, most notably in Chairman Upton’s district.  I discuss the American Lung Association’s shameless billboards in a post on GlobalWarming.org here.

Two former EPA Administrators in Republican administrations, William D. Ruckelshaus and Christie Todd Whitman, published an embarrassingly inane and self-serving op-ed in the Washington Post today, headlined “Undoing 40 years of green gains?”  Ruckelshaus and Whitman write, “Today the agency Richard Nixon created … is under siege.”  They have that backwards.  Americans are under siege by EPA.