Fegwu, if I'm not mistaken, the credits are set to expire for most in 2007. The issue has already been addressed. Next.
From the Portland. Maine newspaper, it looks like both of Maine's GOP Senators are ready to support a filibuster. McCain and the two from NH, Gregg and Sununu are also opposed... however, there is that little matter of subsidies for Dakota farmers, so we'll have to see if the Daschle-led Dems are willinbg to go forward with stopping a really bad bill... __________________ Collins, Snowe would join move to kill energy bill By BART JANSEN, Portland Press Herald Writer Copyright © 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. E-mail this story to a friend WASHINGTON — Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins said Tuesday that they would support a potential filibuster to kill a pending energy bill, even as the measure passed the House. The Maine lawmakers are among a handful of Republicans bucking their congressional leaders and President Bush on one of his top domestic priorities. "The more I delve into this bill, the worse I realize it is," Collins said. "I think it's bad for our environment, it's bad for public health and it's bad energy policy." Snowe also said she would vote against limiting debate, thus allowing the filibuster that could kill the legislation as Congress seeks to adjourn before Thanksgiving. "I'll vote against the energy bill," Snowe said. "When you look at the overall mix, it really does not do much for New England at all." Their comments came the same day that the House voted 246 to 180 to approve the compromise bill that commits an estimated $32 billion to increase oil, coal and nuclear power during the next decade. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud, both D-Maine, opposed the legislation, with Allen calling it "a missed opportunity and a fiscal fiasco." Snowe and Collins had voiced criticism of the compromise bill unveiled Friday. But their public support of a potential filibuster could embolden a minority of Democrats to block the bill by talking it to death. Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, both R-N.H., and John McCain, R-Ariz., have also said they would support a filibuster. Democratic leaders, however, couldn't say Tuesday afternoon whether they would mount a filibuster, which Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has threatened. "You don't have the luxury of picking and choosing in a conference report - you have to either accept it or reject it," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "So that's the real dilemma." Southern and farm-state Democrats like parts of the energy bill, including a provision to double ethanol production to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., voted in favor of the compromise in committee. Collins picked up on the problem facing Daschle. "I suspect Sen. Daschle is on the horns of a dilemma and doesn't really want a filibuster because it has a huge and unwarranted and wasteful subsidy for his farmers," Collins said. "I am convinced this bill is terrible public policy. It's still an open question about whether there are enough of us to sustain a filibuster." Mainers had focused much of their criticism of the bill on a provision protecting manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits. Other concerns included the lack of a requirement that utilities generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. In addition, Mainers had supported conservation efforts such as requiring higher mileage for sports utility vehicles, which was left out of the bill. Despite a pep talk from Vice President Dick Cheney at the weekly Senate Republican lunch in the Capitol, Snowe and Collins each listed more complaints with the bill. Snowe criticized the bill's provisions for coastal-zone management and for dealing with ozone. Collins leveled criticism at electricity provisions, including a subsidy for coal-fired plants that reflected a disadvantage to three natural gas plants in Maine. In addition, she had won approval on a 60 to 37 vote in the Senate of a provision to force utilities to buy electricity from independent generators that recycle heat from their power plants - for use in drying paper, for example. The goal of using the heat is to reduce the emission of so-called greenhouse gases that contribute to warming the atmosphere. But the compromise energy bill dropped that provision, which could allow companies to ignore power from these generators. "This bill will hurt our manufacturers in Maine, which are already laboring under very high electricity costs," Collins said. "The bill has very little if anything to commend it." Another of her amendments, which the Senate approved on a 99 to 1 vote, would have set a goal of reducing national oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2013. But that provision also was cut out of the final version. "How could you be opposed to that?" Collins asked. "They dropped that. This bill is utterly lacking in balance." In the House, Allen and Michaud blasted the bill for giving billions of dollars in direct aid and tax credits to oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear industries without requiring conservation to reduce reliance on foreign energy. "This bill is both a missed opportunity and a fiscal fiasco," Allen said. "It fails to reduce America's dependence on imported fossil fuel through more aggressive conservation measures, most notably higher vehicle fuel economy standards." Michaud said the bill would harm consumers, endanger public health and the environment, and do little to improve energy security. "This is a bill authored in the back rooms of the Capitol without bipartisan participation, and the result is a bill that fails the American people," Michaud said.
OK, I've been a reluctant Daschle supporter, but no more. He needs to move on. If he can't recognize that the administration is playing him like a puppet with the ethanol provision and if he can't recognize that he needs to put the national interest above his parochial interests, then it is time for him to relenquish his leadership post. Sad. (And it's not like he couldn't get ethanol language in some other bill.) This energy bill is nothing more than pork. It is overladen with giveaways that are unnecessary and probably counterproductive. To top it off, there seems to be a real bipartisan effort to defeat this bill and the Leading Dem is missing in action. Here's the latest breakdown which makes it look like a filibuster could succeed... DEMOCRATS FOR THE BILL Daschle (SD) Dorgan (ND) Landrieu (LA) Lincoln (AK) Miller (GA) Reid (NV) Probable "yes" Dem votes: Akaka (HI) Breaux (LA) Harkin (IA) Inouye (HI) REPUBLICANS AGAINST THE BILL Chafee (RI) Collins (ME) Gregg (NH) Kyl (AZ) McCain (AZ) Snowe (ME) Sununu (NH) Leaning "no" GOP votes: Alexander (TN) Here's the article... _________________ Daschle Says He Will Vote for Energy Bill Thu Nov 20, 7:08 AM ET Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo! By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated press Writer WASHINGTON - Attempts to derail the energy bill over a dispute involving a gasoline additive suffered a setback when the Senate's top Democrat said he would support limiting debate on the legislation. Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Wednesday he was ready to support the broad energy legislation and will oppose attempts block it over the issue of MTBE, a gasoline additive found to contaminate drinking water supplies. The bill would double ethanol use, an important issue in Daschle's state where he faces re-election next year. A Daschle spokesman, Dan Pfeiffer, said the senator will vote for ending debate on the bill, overcoming any impending filibuster by senators opposed to the MTBE provision, as long as senators are given adequate time to debate the legislation. "There is a lot of legitimate concern about the bill on both sides of the aisle ... (but) he will support it because of ethanol and other provisions in the bill on energy efficiency," said Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer said Daschle had not determined how much time would be sufficient. On Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and other Republicans set a parliamentary vote for Friday for ending the debate. That would force a final up-or-down decision on the 1,100-page bill, which breezed through the House on Tuesday. Pfeiffer said Daschle hasn't decide yet whether he would support concluding debate Friday or let it go on a bit longer. Democrats have complained they had little say in putting together the bill during 2 1/2 months of mostly closed-door negotiations between House and Senate Republicans. Daschle told a South Dakota radio station that while he has some concerns about the bill — including the MTBE provisions — it was good news for renewable fuels such as ethanol. South Dakota is a major producer of corn-based ethanol. The bill calls for doubling ethanol production to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said that he's confident the legislation, which provides $23 billion in tax breaks and contains hundreds of provisions beneficial to a broad range of energy industries, will get a substantial majority. It would be the first time Congress has agreed on a blueprint for the nation's energy agenda since 1992. But some Democrats as well as Republicans have made clear their distaste for the bill, especially a provision that would give makers of MTBE liability protection from lawsuits. MTBE, put in gasoline to reduce air pollution, has been found to contaminate drinking water supplies in at least 28 states. Supporters of the liability shield argue that the contamination stems from spills of gasoline containing MTBE or leaks from underground tanks at gasoline stations and that the product itself should not be viewed as the villain. The issue brought some heated exchanges on the Senate floor Wednesday. When Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a supporter of the bill, suggested that MTBE was not a health hazard even though it fouls water so that it's not drinkable, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. shot back, "If a person cannot live in their home (because they can't drink the water), is that not a health hazard?" New Hampshire recently filed a lawsuit against 22 oil and refining companies, demanding that they help pay for water cleanup from MTBE pollution. But the provision in the energy bill would bar the state from going after these companies on the basis of product liability. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who opposes the energy bill because of the MTBE waiver and other issues said, "I've been for ethanol for 21 years, and I just can't do this. That's a bargain with the devil."
Thank goodness there are still enough real Republicans left to defeat something like this... ____________ Energy Bill Vote Blocked Senate Debate Continues on Measure By H. Josef Hebert The Associated Press Friday, November 21, 2003; 12:00 PM Opponents of a massive energy bill on Friday blocked the Senate from taking a final vote and sending the measure to President Bush. On a 57-40 vote, supporters failed by three votes to cut off debate on the legislation, which they said would increase and diversify energy production and provide farmers an economic boost by expanding use of corn-based ethanol. They needed 60 votes under the Senate's rules to close debate on the bill and move on to a final vote. The House passed the legislation earlier this week. "This will not be the last vote on this bill," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "We're going to keep voting until we pass it and get it to the president." Opponents of the bill waged a frantic campaign for votes to derail the legislation, arguing the $31 billion bill -- crafted largely in closed-door Republican negotiations with the House -- was too expensive and amounted to a collection of subsidies to special interests. Six Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill. Frist, who was obligated to change his vote and cast it with the opposition so the measure can be brought up again, vowed not to abandon the legislation. But he could not say when it would be back for another try. Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who voted for ending debate, called the defeat "unfortunate." He said Senate energy negotiators "were undercut by manipulation by the House Republican leadership" that pressed for measures in the bill that many senators could not accept. Approval of an energy bill has been a top priority for President Bush, who repeatedly called on Congress to finish the legislation this year. As opponents to the bill appeared to gain strength, Vice President Dick Cheney began calling GOP senators urging them not to abandon the president on the issue. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a former senator from Michigan, was dispatched to Capitol Hill in the hours before the voting. Republican supporters of the bill called it balanced and said it would provide for diversifying the nation's energy sources. But a growing number of senators -- both Democrats and at least six Republicans -- criticized the bill as too costly, a giveaway to energy industries, and bad for the environment. A particular target was a provision that would shield manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from product liability lawsuits. The issue was key in getting five GOP senators from New England, where MTBE contamination of water supplies has been a major concern, to oppose the legislation. The bill has "glaring examples of industry favors," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another opponent. He called it a "Thanksgiving turkey" stuffed with goodies for special interests. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., also objected to the bill's price tag -- an estimated $31 billion over 10 years -- arguing that the measure exceeds the congressional budget ceiling. The debate is over "allowing this country to get back into the business of producing energy," countered Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho. But that argument didn't sway enough senators to approve the first overhaul of the nation's energy agenda in more than a decade. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said there were some good things in the bill, but he strongly opposed provisions to mandate use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline nationwide and the bill's handling of MTBE. Democrats also objected to the way the bill had been crafted -- largely behind closed doors in negotiations among Senate and House Republicans. "It really doesn't help the Senate to prolong the inevitable. The inevitable is this bill is history. It's not going to go any place," said Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic whip. The ethanol issue was viewed as critical for the bill to pass. The bill would double the use of ethanol, an economic boon to farm states. But while farm-state Democrats joined Republicans in support of the measure, senators from the far West and Northeast, who were opposed to the ethanol requirements, added to the strength of the opposition. The bill contains hundreds of items sought by energy lobbyists, including tax breaks for oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, plus tax credits for renewable energy and conservation. Among its major provisions: -- Tax breaks of $13 billion for oil, gas and coal industries, and $5.5 billion for renewable energy sources -- wind, solar and biomass. -- Mandatory reliability requirements for high-voltage power lines and incentives to spur power line production. -- A requirement to double ethanol production for gasoline to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. -- Authority and financial help, including $18 billion in loan guarantees, to build a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska's North Slope. -- Tax incentives for improving energy efficiency of homes and appliances, including a tax credit for buying hybrid gas-electric cars. -- A requirement to speed up permits and ease some environmental rules to promote energy development on public lands. -- A 10-year, $1 billion program to deal with "coastal erosion" for six states with offshore oil and gas production. Louisiana would get more than half of the money.
