In The News
E&E; News: No schedule yet for Senate vote on EPA resolution
Tuesday November 16, 2010
A Senate floor vote on a resolution delaying U.S. EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will depend on Republican cooperation on unemployment insurance extension and other issues, the EPA measure's lead sponsor said today.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he plans to meet with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) later today to discuss the timing of a vote on his resolution, but that its consideration could largely depend on Republicans.
Rockefeller cautioned that the GOP could effectively "shut everything down" on the unemployment insurance extension, which is set to expire on Nov. 30. That issue, he said, could mean the difference between an abridged lame-duck session -- with little time to vote on an EPA delay -- and a longer stretch of legislating.
Reid also expressed uncertainty that a vote on the Rockefeller resolution would happen. "It is real hard just to say 'Yeah, we can do this,' because we have limited time to go through all the procedural motions," Reid said after the Democratic caucus meeting today. "But if there is a way we can do it, I will be happy to work with him."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he plans to meet with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) later today to discuss the timing of a vote on his resolution, but that its consideration could largely depend on Republicans.
Rockefeller cautioned that the GOP could effectively "shut everything down" on the unemployment insurance extension, which is set to expire on Nov. 30. That issue, he said, could mean the difference between an abridged lame-duck session -- with little time to vote on an EPA delay -- and a longer stretch of legislating.
Reid also expressed uncertainty that a vote on the Rockefeller resolution would happen. "It is real hard just to say 'Yeah, we can do this,' because we have limited time to go through all the procedural motions," Reid said after the Democratic caucus meeting today. "But if there is a way we can do it, I will be happy to work with him."
E&E; News: Cap and trade dead next session - Reid
Tuesday November 16, 2010
There will be no cap-and-trade climate bill considered in the next Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised a colleague today.
Newly sworn-in Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said today that Reid made a "total commitment" to him that there would be no cap and trade next session.
Reid's office confirmed the promise. "Given the election results, there is no chance we can deal with cap and trade," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told E&ENews; PM.
Whether Reid pushed the measure or not, it was unlikely to gain traction next Congress after Republicans narrowed Democrats' Senate majority and took control of the House.
A cap-and-trade bill, which would set a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions and require polluters to buy carbon permits, once seemed destined to become the law of the land. House Democrats passed a cap-and-trade measure in 2009 that, along with carbon limits, included incentives and mandates for renewable energy and $60 billion in funding for carbon capture and storage technologies for coal plants.
Newly sworn-in Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said today that Reid made a "total commitment" to him that there would be no cap and trade next session.
Reid's office confirmed the promise. "Given the election results, there is no chance we can deal with cap and trade," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told E&ENews; PM.
Whether Reid pushed the measure or not, it was unlikely to gain traction next Congress after Republicans narrowed Democrats' Senate majority and took control of the House.
A cap-and-trade bill, which would set a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions and require polluters to buy carbon permits, once seemed destined to become the law of the land. House Democrats passed a cap-and-trade measure in 2009 that, along with carbon limits, included incentives and mandates for renewable energy and $60 billion in funding for carbon capture and storage technologies for coal plants.
Tulsa World Editorial: Fight on
Monday November 15, 2010
Love him or hate him, Oklahomans have to admire U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe's tenacity when it comes to the fraudulent war on earmarks being waged by some of his fellow lawmakers.
The Oklahoma Republican has vowed to vigorously fight a proposed Senate moratorium on earmarks, using as one of his strongest arguments the blatant hypocrisy of the anti-earmark crusade.
Inhofe believes his solid bona fides as a stalwart conservative will lend credence to his battle.
But it will be an uphill battle. "Earmarks" has become a dirty word in the political arena, ranking almost up there with the "T" word and the "L" word. (For the uninitiated, that's taxes and liberals.)
The House already has imposed an earmarks moratorium and now senators realize there is much political hay to be harvested by hopping on that wagon.
The Oklahoma Republican has vowed to vigorously fight a proposed Senate moratorium on earmarks, using as one of his strongest arguments the blatant hypocrisy of the anti-earmark crusade.
Inhofe believes his solid bona fides as a stalwart conservative will lend credence to his battle.
But it will be an uphill battle. "Earmarks" has become a dirty word in the political arena, ranking almost up there with the "T" word and the "L" word. (For the uninitiated, that's taxes and liberals.)
The House already has imposed an earmarks moratorium and now senators realize there is much political hay to be harvested by hopping on that wagon.
Politico: Inhofe: The secret about earmarks
Friday November 12, 2010
Shhhh! There's a secret about earmarks: Eliminating them won't save taxpayers one dime. Instead, the money gets turned back to President Barack Obama so he can direct spending as he sees fit.
In light of this, it is no wonder that Obama is willing to support the ban and join the Republicans senators who for years have demagogued about congressional earmarks. On Election Day the American people sent the message to Washington that it is time to reduce government spending, repeal Obamacare and cut taxes. A moratorium on earmarks would only serve to increase the amount of money Obama has to spend.
This year, the House in its earmark ban, defined "earmarks" as authorizations and appropriations - precisely what Article I Section 9 of the Constitution states Congress is supposed to do.
In light of this, it is no wonder that Obama is willing to support the ban and join the Republicans senators who for years have demagogued about congressional earmarks. On Election Day the American people sent the message to Washington that it is time to reduce government spending, repeal Obamacare and cut taxes. A moratorium on earmarks would only serve to increase the amount of money Obama has to spend.
This year, the House in its earmark ban, defined "earmarks" as authorizations and appropriations - precisely what Article I Section 9 of the Constitution states Congress is supposed to do.
NRO: Inhofe: Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue
Friday November 12, 2010
Americans - especially conservatives - are being taken with a fiscal sleight of hand. Rightly concerned about the future of our country and the out-of-control spending taking place in Washington, these concerned citizens are being duped by the earmark debate. Getting rid of earmarks does not save taxpayers any money, reduces transparency, and gives more power to the Obama administration.
A congressional earmark moratorium won't save a single taxpayer dime. Proponents of the earmark ban like to say that a dollar cut is a dollar saved. Unfortunately, that's just not true. For example, in 2009 the Senate performed the rare action of considering many appropriations bills individually rather than irresponsibly lumping them all into one large bill to consider at the end of the year. The value of considering these bills individually is that it gives senators the opportunity to exercise some oversight of government programs and to monitor how federal departments spend money. Senators could offer amendments to both cut spending and strike particular earmarks if they desired. From July to November that year, there were about 18 votes specifically targeting earmarks. All the amendments failed. But had they succeeded, they would not have reduced the overall amount of money being spent by the federal government. Instead of putting the money back into the pockets of the American people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these efforts to eliminate earmarks would have put more money into the hand of President Obama by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit. At the end of the day, none would have saved money.
A congressional earmark moratorium won't save a single taxpayer dime. Proponents of the earmark ban like to say that a dollar cut is a dollar saved. Unfortunately, that's just not true. For example, in 2009 the Senate performed the rare action of considering many appropriations bills individually rather than irresponsibly lumping them all into one large bill to consider at the end of the year. The value of considering these bills individually is that it gives senators the opportunity to exercise some oversight of government programs and to monitor how federal departments spend money. Senators could offer amendments to both cut spending and strike particular earmarks if they desired. From July to November that year, there were about 18 votes specifically targeting earmarks. All the amendments failed. But had they succeeded, they would not have reduced the overall amount of money being spent by the federal government. Instead of putting the money back into the pockets of the American people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these efforts to eliminate earmarks would have put more money into the hand of President Obama by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit. At the end of the day, none would have saved money.
Tulsa World: Sen. Jim Inhofe steps up to oppose earmarks moratorium
Friday November 12, 2010
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, stepping up his campaign against a fellow Republican's proposal to place a moratorium on earmarks, said Wednesday his conservative record gives him credentials to take on the battle.
"I am recognized, and people on the talk shows know I am considered the most conservative member of Congress,'' the Oklahoma Republican said.
"If the most conservative member of Congress can't tell the truth, no one else can.''
As part of a campaign that included weeks of planning, Inhofe vowed to point out the hypocrisy of those pushing for the moratorium and to unveil an alternative proposal that will resolve the earmark problem forever.
That will come in a speech Monday on the Senate floor.
"I am recognized, and people on the talk shows know I am considered the most conservative member of Congress,'' the Oklahoma Republican said.
"If the most conservative member of Congress can't tell the truth, no one else can.''
As part of a campaign that included weeks of planning, Inhofe vowed to point out the hypocrisy of those pushing for the moratorium and to unveil an alternative proposal that will resolve the earmark problem forever.
That will come in a speech Monday on the Senate floor.
HOT AIR: Exclusive interview: Sen. James Inhofe pushes back on earmark moratorium
Wednesday November 10, 2010
In a wide-ranging interview this morning exclusive to Hot Air with one of the leading conservative voices in Congress, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma explained why he has decided to oppose the earmark moratorium pushed this week by fellow Republicans like Sens. Jim DeMint (SC) and John McCain (AZ). The moratorium not only contradicts the Constitution, Inhofe argues, but it puts the power of the purse mainly into the hands of the President - and Barack Obama has already shown that he can't be trusted with it after his pork-filled stimulus plan from February 2009. Inhofe warns that "Obama wins" if the moratorium passes, which is why the President has publicly backed the effort.
The Senator knows that I have been a critic of earmarking and have supported a moratorium in the past, and we debated the issue during our conversation. He didn't disagree that earmarks have become a cesspool of abuse, but disputed that the moratorium would change anything except authorship. Inhofe plans to introduce a bill on Monday when the Senate reconvenes that will attempt to stop the abuses, and promises to discuss those provisions further once the bill gets onto the floor.
The Senator knows that I have been a critic of earmarking and have supported a moratorium in the past, and we debated the issue during our conversation. He didn't disagree that earmarks have become a cesspool of abuse, but disputed that the moratorium would change anything except authorship. Inhofe plans to introduce a bill on Monday when the Senate reconvenes that will attempt to stop the abuses, and promises to discuss those provisions further once the bill gets onto the floor.
Las Vegas Review-Journal: Vote timing nettles repository backers
Wednesday November 10, 2010
The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday defended his handling of Yucca Mountain, saying he did not delay his vote on the contentious nuclear waste site this fall to avoid affecting the hotly contested Senate race in Nevada.
Gregory Jaczko confirmed he withdrew his vote on the Nevada repository until late October but said it was not done to avoid complicating re-election for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former boss whose campaign was based in part on his efforts to kill the plan.
"The commission process is a deliberative process that involves the work of all commissioners," Jaczko said. "No one commissioner had any preferential vote in the matter. We all have equal votes. If or when the commission has an order ready, it will move forward with an order."
Gregory Jaczko confirmed he withdrew his vote on the Nevada repository until late October but said it was not done to avoid complicating re-election for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former boss whose campaign was based in part on his efforts to kill the plan.
"The commission process is a deliberative process that involves the work of all commissioners," Jaczko said. "No one commissioner had any preferential vote in the matter. We all have equal votes. If or when the commission has an order ready, it will move forward with an order."
Jaczko Delayed NRC Yucca Vote By Two Months
Tuesday November 9, 2010
In a disclosure that could fuel allegations that his handling of the issue has been politically motivated, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko has acknowledged that he substantially delayed a commission ruling on whether the Energy Department had authority to withdraw a license application before the NRC on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
While a federal appeals court stayed litigation with the expectation that the NRC would expedite its decision on the controversy, newly released documents show that Jackzo initially voted on the Yucca matter in August, but then withdrew his vote and waited more than two months to resubmit it in late October-ensuring the matter would not be decided before the November 3 elections.
All the other NRC commissioners had voted on the matter by mid-September, according to documents delivered to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) last week.
While a federal appeals court stayed litigation with the expectation that the NRC would expedite its decision on the controversy, newly released documents show that Jackzo initially voted on the Yucca matter in August, but then withdrew his vote and waited more than two months to resubmit it in late October-ensuring the matter would not be decided before the November 3 elections.
All the other NRC commissioners had voted on the matter by mid-September, according to documents delivered to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) last week.
Energy Daily: Jaczko Delayed NRC Yucca Vote By Two Months
Tuesday November 9, 2010
In a disclosure that could fuel allegations that his handling of the issue has been politically motivated, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko has acknowledged that he substantially delayed a commission ruling on whether the Energy Department had authority to withdraw a license application before the NRC on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
While a federal appeals court stayed litigation with the expectation that the NRC would expedite its decision on the controversy, newly released documents show that Jackzo initially voted on the Yucca matter in August, but then withdrew his vote and waited more than two months to resubmit it in late October-ensuring the matter would not be decided before the November 3 elections.
All the other NRC commissioners had voted on the matter by mid-September, according to documents delivered to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) last week.
While a federal appeals court stayed litigation with the expectation that the NRC would expedite its decision on the controversy, newly released documents show that Jackzo initially voted on the Yucca matter in August, but then withdrew his vote and waited more than two months to resubmit it in late October-ensuring the matter would not be decided before the November 3 elections.
All the other NRC commissioners had voted on the matter by mid-September, according to documents delivered to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) last week.
