I'll be curious to follow the actions of Mr. Leach, our Iowa Sierra
endorsement, through all of this. SSemken

Date sent:              Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:43:35 -0600
Send reply to:          "Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements"              <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Jane Clark <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Frankenbill--the energy bill is alive
To:                     [log in to unmask]

> Frankenbill
> The energy bill is alive -- alive! -- and that could be bad news for ANWR
> By Amanda Griscom Little
> 09 Nov 2004
>
> A day after winning the presidential election last week, George
> W. Bush made this now-legendary -- and, to some, menacing --
> statement: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital,
> and now I intend to spend it." Without dwelling on the notion
> that conservatives are supposed to protect and grow capital, not
> fritter it away, environmentalists are wondering just where and
> how President Bush is going to spend his political booty in the
> natural-resource realm.
>
> In much the same way he spent his more limited allowance in the
> last go-round, according to U.S. EPA chief Mike Leavitt. As
> reported in Greenwire last Friday, Leavitt told the press that
> the Bushies will proudly stay the course on their environmental
> agenda -- one widely condemned by environmentalists, but newly
> bolstered by the election. "We now have a clear agenda, one
> that's been validated and empowered by the people of this
> country," he said.
>
> If past is indeed prologue in the Bush administration, say
> enviros, it's fair to assume that a key beneficiary of the
> president's newfound capital will be the energy industry. During
> Bush's first term, efforts to weaken clean-air regulations and
> expedite oil and gas drilling were regarded as paybacks for
> campaign contributions. This time around, the energy and
> natural-resources sector made record donations to Bush's
> campaign -- a total of $4.4 million for the 2004 cycle,
> according to the latest data from the Center for Responsive
> Politics, compared with $2.8 million in the 2000 campaign.
>
> "Right now Karl Rove is saying, 'First things first, George.
> These are the folks that floated our campaign, we need to give
> them our thanks,'" said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra
> Club's Global Warming and Energy Program.
>
> Now that the Republicans have gained four seats in the Senate,
> giving them a 55-45 advantage, there's a good chance that the
> 109th Congress will enable President Bush to hand his corporate
> contributors one of the most sought-after prizes of all:
> Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bush is also better
> positioned to get Senate approval for his stalled-out energy
> bill, which has been widely criticized on both sides of the
> aisle as pork at its worst, with its billions of dollars in
> subsidies for fossil-fuel producers and other special interests.
>
> There have been rumblings on Capitol Hill that the energy bill
> could come up for consideration during the lame-duck session
> that will begin on Nov. 16, even before the 108th Congress
> adjourns at the end of this year. Lame-duck sessions are
> typically more rushed and insulated from media scrutiny than
> other sessions, which could be advantageous when pushing forward
> a highly contentious and complex piece of legislation.
>
> But most observers think the energy bill won't get off the
> ground until 2005. "No one expects the Republicans to go to
> great lengths to move it now when they can just rewrite it next
> year, and they'll have the advantage of a bigger margin," said
> Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources
> Defense Council.
>
> Indeed, energy-bill advocates insist that the new Republicans
> who'll be taking office in January will put them in good stead:
> "We have more than enough votes for an energy bill," Sen. George
> Allen (R-Va.), chair of the National Republican Senatorial
> Committee, declared at a press conference last Wednesday.
>
> Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the industry group Electric
> Reliability Coordinating Council, shares Allen's optimism.
> "Things are definitely looking up for an omnibus energy bill,"
> he told Muckraker. "Not only is there a larger operating
> majority for Republicans, you've got to consider the cost of
> energy: We've had sustained oil prices above $50 [a barrel],
> which is a real red-flag zone, and natural gas at three times
> the historical average. This could very well stimulate the
> passage, particularly among moderate Democrats and more liberal
> Republicans."
>
> A big sticking point for the energy bill, though, is its MTBE
> provision, which would indemnify producers of the gasoline
> additive MTBE against water-pollution lawsuits. "The energy bill
> got jammed on the MTBE provision and never got unstuck," said
> Bill Wicker, spokesperson for Democrats on the Senate Energy and
> Natural Resources Committee. "Even though there are nine new
> senators coming to town [seven Republicans, two Democrats],
> nearly all of them will vote the same way on this issue as their
> predecessors."
>
> It's true that extra support for the bill in the Senate will
> come from Richard Burr of North Carolina (replacing Democrat
> John Edwards), Mel Martinez of Florida (replacing Democrat Bob
> Graham), and Jim DeMint of South Carolina (replacing Democrat
> Fritz Hollings). But Republican John Thune, who will take the
> place of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D) from South
> Dakota, won't amount to a gained vote because Daschle was a
> strong supporter of the energy bill. Two more GOP gains are
> canceled out by Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois (replacing
> Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald) and Democrat Ken Salazar of
> Colorado (replacing Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell).
> Salazar is from a strong oil and gas state, so his pro-
> environment vote on this bill is not guaranteed, but Becker,
> whose organization endorsed Salazar's campaign, says it's very
> likely.
>
> Moreover, peer pressure from reenergized GOP colleagues won't
> easily sway some New England Republicans: "John Sununu and Judd
> Gregg are Republican senators from New Hampshire who voted
> against the bill because of the MTBE provision," said Becker,
> "but New Hampshire is currently suing MTBE manufacturers because
> of water contamination in the state, so switching their vote
> would undermine their state's legal position." Also, the
> Republican senator from Nevada, John Ensign, is unlikely to
> change his no vote because the bill is loaded with subsidies for
> the nuclear-power industry and could therefore lead to the
> generation of more nuclear waste. As the Bush administration
> already wants to dump existing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain
> in Nevada, to the ire of Ensign's constituency, a nuke-friendly
> energy bill isn't likely to go over well in the Silver State.
>
> According to Wicker, many folks on both sides of the aisle now
> think the energy bill should be broken down into smaller
> digestible bites, and the MTBE provision dropped. "That's far
> more realistic than trying to force everyone to swallow one
> gargantuan bill whole," even with the new Republican votes, he
> said.
>
> The piecemeal strategy could prove successful on many fronts,
> including on the Arctic Refuge. "The vote numbers effectively
> haven't moved on MTBE [given the new makeup of the Senate], but
> the numbers have moved on ANWR," said Wicker.
>
> Here's why: While Daschle voted for the energy bill, he was a
> steadfast opponent of drilling in ANWR; his successor will
> support both. And while Obama will almost certainly vote against
> drilling in ANWR, his predecessor Peter Fitzgerald was one of
> the few Republicans who also opposed it, meaning that Obama adds
> no new votes to the ANWR opposition. Also, Republicans are much
> more vulnerable to peer pressure on this issue given that there
> are no regional reasons (such as MTBE contamination or Yucca
> Mountain) for them to oppose it.
>
> According to Wicker, the congressional leadership is expected to
> make opening ANWR a part of the budget reconciliation process
> early next year by tacking the ANWR provision onto a budget bill
> that cannot be filibustered, so it would need only 50 votes to
> pass rather than the 60 necessary to avert a filibuster. "They
> tried to do this in 2003 and failed, but the reality is that
> with four new Republican votes, open-ANWR proponents have the
> wind at their back," he said.
>
> Becker of the Sierra Club said this may be just what
> environmentalists need. "The public opposition to drilling in
> the Arctic Refuge is huge. People have come to associate it with
> greed rather than need."
>
> And historically the perception of greed has galvanized public
> opposition to initiatives that are overly friendly to industry
> and unfriendly to the environment and public health. Lawmakers
> and business lobbies overreach, and then get slapped by public
> opinion. This is precisely what happened with the MTBE liability
> exemption, for instance. It's what happened during Bush's first
> term when the EPA tried to weaken standards for arsenic in
> drinking water and exempt millions of acres of wetlands from
> protections -- initiatives that stirred up so much controversy
> they simply couldn't survive.
>
> "Right now," said Becker, "greed is the best friend that the
> environment has."
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]