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]