The E&E headline sums it up: "Senate GOP plots 'war' over House energy plan" (sub rqd).
It sounds like Pelosi has done her job, restoring to the bill most of the provisions greens have been stumping for, including the RES and removal of some tax breaks from the oil industry:
House Democratic leaders today said the bill will include a roughly $21 billion tax package aimed at expanding renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives. Of that, roughly $13.5 billion in new taxes would be directed at oil companies to help offset the costs, a House Democratic aide said.
That's not going to go over well in the Senate:
In the Senate, the inclusion of the tax and utility provisions means a likely filibuster. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said the auto mileage and biofuels provisions are "great for America," but he thinks the other two additions sully the bill.
Now the ball is in Harry Reid's court. Can he muster the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster? This is a serious test of his leadership and I think it's fair to judge him by the results. Time to throw down.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 8:10 am
04 Dec 2007
This energy bill has some good stuff in it, and alot of crap. This makes it much better than previous energy bills, which were almost pure crap, but even so. The renewable fuels mandate in itself is arguably bad enough to jettison the bill on ecological grounds.
So to me this looks like an opportunity for the conservatives to look stupid, by opposing measures that have alot of popular support: the RPS, the solar tax credit, and the oil company tax revocation (rightly or wrongly, sticking it to the oil companies is always a crowd-pleaser). If the conservatives lose, then great. But if they win, they still lose, because the next administration is probably NOT going to veto a bill just because it supports solar.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:34 am
04 Dec 2007
While that would be great, it's an awfully large assumption. For an even better bill to pass (since it seems this one has enough trouble as it is), we'd need a majority in both the house and the senate to support it, and even more than that if we end up with a president who doesn't support it and we need to override a veto.
Though I'd like a better bill, I still say they should concentrate efforts on gettin' this one passed, 'cause if things don't go our way in the next elections (which is a distinct possibility), this may be the best chance we get for a long while to get anythin' done.
Permalink
s5 Posted 8:41 am
04 Dec 2007
I wish the Democrats had allowed the Republicans to kill the filibuster (the "nuclear option") instead of brokering the deal that got us Alito and Roberts anyway. And really, why should the minority party get any say? They were voted out of power for a reason. If want their agenda to be considered, they can do it the old fashioned way: by trying to persuade their colleagues on the other side of the aisle and by making their case to the public. Otherwise, if their bad ideas have been rejected by the electorate, then tough turnips for them.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:36 am
04 Dec 2007
And you're right that the media has suddenly stopped using the F word. All the sudden bills fail because they "couldn't get to 60 votes," as though that's just a normal bar to get over. Maddening.
grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 12:04 pm
04 Dec 2007
Care to elucidate on that? Traditionally, it's been a mechanism for small-party interests to avoid getting steamrollered. Like, say, the Democrats in years (recently) past.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:23 pm
04 Dec 2007
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:17 pm
04 Dec 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.ht ...
http://action.foe.org/pressRelease.jsp?press_release_KEY= ...
Permalink
randino Posted 8:45 pm
04 Dec 2007
I just hope in 2008 people remember them for what they are - scoundrels.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:55 pm
04 Dec 2007
Why can't Congress break these comprehensive packages down into bite sizes and really debate and work on each segment as separate bills?
Why kill the entire package if there are some legitimate gripes about parts of the package? The legislators are pros at adding amendments and poison pills that stymie progress.
We need a reform of Congress if we are going to make real progress. There are scoundrels on both sides of the aisle that exploit the weaknesses of the institution.
Permalink