legislation

Why does Bush never veto legislation?

Because he can just direct federal agencies to ignore it instead. And speaking of corrupt federal agencies, check out the latest clowning at Interior, involving Steven Griles, one of the A-list hacks of the Bush years. The cojones on these guys …

More victories

Sweet! Here’s a press release I just got from Friends of the Earth: —– WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today voted against two attempts to encourage the use of liquid coal, rejecting a pair of amendments to the energy bill that would have alternately mandated 6 billion gallons of liquid coal use annually by 2022 […]

Chalk up a win for Pelosi

Well hey, look at that! No sooner do I write a post on the horrible legislative proposal out of Dingell’s Energy Committee than I find out that Pelosi has more or less beat it back. A memo Dingell sent to the committee today (PDF) says that he and Boucher are removing most of the controversial […]

Wherein I chat with House types

Hi! I’m back. And — if you’ll indulge me in a little whining — I’m sick as a dog, woefully behind on the news, buried under work, and just generally frazzled and bedraggled and haggard. And what’s with time zones? They’re stupid. Woe is me, I tell you. I wanted to do a quick post […]

More intransigence on climate change

Hello! I just wanted to drop by Gristmill to give all of you an update on the energy bill. To no one's surprise, the Republicans are throwing sand in the gears and trying to block any meaningful progress.

The energy bill, as it stands, is not nearly strong enough, so there are a number of amendments that must be adopted to give us a bill that actually gets us started on that path of dealing with our energy crisis and our climate crisis.

New energy legislation in Congress debates various terrible solutions

This piece in the NYT is pretty depressing. It’s about the main battles around the upcoming energy legislation. Here are the points of contention: Ethanol subsidies Coal and nuclear subsidies CAFE standards On pretty much all these issues, it’s Big Money lobby vs. Big Money lobby, and every one of them is a distraction — […]

Make your opinion heard

Senator Bingaman is with the majority of Americans in wanting more renewable energy. Accordingly, he has authored legislation that would require utilities to increase renewables in their portfolio to 15 percent by 2020.

Senator Domenici is with the craven few who don't want this to happen. Accordingly, he has authored an amendment to redefine qualifying renewables to include nukes and coal. So tricky! But we are on to him.

The vote on Domenici's amendment will take place this afternoon. Calls to the following swinging senators by 2 p.m. EDT today could make all the difference.

Minn. - Coleman - 202.224.5641

N.H. - Gregg - 202.224.3324

Ark. - Pryor - 202.224.2353

Ark. - Lincoln - 202.224.4843

Kan. - Brownback - 202.224.6521

Ind. - Bayh - 202.224.5623

Ore. - Smith - 202.224.3753

Mo. - McCaskill - 202.224.6154

W.Va. - Rockefeller- 202.224.6472

If you live in or know anyone in these states, consider calling ASAP.

Talking points:

• Hi, my name is XXXX and I'm calling from [city, state].
• I'm calling to ask Senator XXXX to oppose Senator Domenici's amendment to the national renewable portfolio standard bill.
• The amendment would weaken the deployment of truly clean and renewable electricity sources like wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal.
• The renewable standard is intended to promote our development of clean, new energy sources, not give more subsidies to the coal and nuclear industries.
• The bill provides a way to save consumers like me money on their utility bills by increasing the competition from renewable energy sources and reducing the demand for natural gas
• Thank you.

Action courtesy of UCS

On the cutting edge

The Burlington Free Press has a story on some energy legislation Sen. Bernie Sanders is about to introduce:

Sanders' proposed energy grants could be used by Vermont towns and counties to update building codes to require construction of energy-efficient homes and businesses, retrofit old buildings with newer technology, experiment with alternative energy, create incentives for residents to car pool or ride the bus, and organize voluntary efforts to encourage people to save energy by turning down their thermostats or replacing traditional light bulbs with compact fluorescent lighting.

The Senate also will vote on a Sanders amendment that would create a program to train workers to install solar panels, retrofit older homes and offices, and perform energy audits to educate people about how to save money.

The article also contains the bizarre reasoning of the folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, about how Sanders' legislation will destroy the economy.

On Thom Hartmann's Friday (June 1st) podcast, Sanders made the following remarks:

Threatening local control in our food system

When the Democrats took control of Congress, a colleague of mine looked at me with a sigh of relief and said, "Isn't it great that we won't have to be playing defense against bad policy anymore?" If only that first impression were the case.

In a democracy, we shouldn't have to be constantly vigilant for bad legislative ideas that could hurt the public good. Our legislators are supposed to be the filter that guards against schemes that would strip rights and take choices away from people. Unfortunately, it seems to be the same politics, with the same money trails.

JMG's post yesterday touches on a topic I have been thinking a lot about, and I want to address it in more detail.

On the House Agriculture Committee website, summaries of all of the parts of the legislation being offered are posted. Under the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry there is a Title I Section-by-Section analysis. Section 123 is particularly problematic:

SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED STATUS.
* Prevents a State or locality from prohibiting an article the Secretary of Agriculture has inspected and passed, or an article the Secretary has determined to be of nonregulated status.

What does this mean? Also known as "preemption language," this broad statement basically says that if the USDA says something is safe, a state or local government is not allowed to regulate it. For example, there have been a number of counties around the country that have banned genetically modified organisms from being produced within their borders. This preemption-style language, if it's passed in the Farm Bill, would void those local laws.