Looks like they spent a lot of "energy" on the bill but produced very little output.
Posted on 08/08/2005 6:27:32 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
President Bush is doing something he has wanted to do for four years: sign legislation that marks a major overhaul of the nation's energy policies.
Bush is to sign the 1,724-page bill Monday in New Mexico, home of Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, a driving force in getting the measure passed with bipartisan support last month. The measure ended a yearlong congressional standoff over energy policy.
The ceremony at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque begins a week of events meant to highlight the president's legislative successes and underscore economic and national security issues.
In coming days, Bush meets at his Texas ranch with his defense and economic advisers and travels to Illinois to sign a highway bill.
Supporters say that in the long run, the new law will refocus the nation's energy priorities and promote cleaner and alternative sources of energy. Bush has said he believes the nation must find new ways, besides fossil fuels, to power the economy.
But even the bill's sponsors acknowledged the legislation will have little, if any impact, on today's energy prices or wean the nation away from its thirst for oil.
Domenici, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the bill would provide financial incentives and federal policies "that we as a nation will benefit from, not tomorrow but for the next five or 10 years."
The measure funnels billions of dollars to energy companies, including tax breaks and loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, clean coal technology and wind energy.
But for the first time, utilities will be required to comply with federal reliability standards for its electricity grid, instead of self-regulation. That is intended to reduce the chance of a repeat of a power blackout, such as the one that struck the Midwest and Northeast in the summer of 2003.
For consumers, the bill would provide tax credits for buying hybrid gasoline-electric cars and making energy-conservation improvements in new and existing homes. Also, beginning in 2007, the measure extends daylight-saving time by one month to save energy.
The bill's price tag — $12.3 billion over 10 years — is twice what the White House had first proposed. It does not include Bush's desire to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. Drilling advocates, however, have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.
Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing Arctic drilling as part of a budget procedure that is not subject to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is being worked out.
Critics of the energy bill are speaking out while Bush is in New Mexico. The League of Conservation Voters, The Wilderness Society, the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, USAPIRG and others plan to highlight what else is not in the energy bill.
Martha Marks of Santa Fe, N.M., president of the National Republicans for Environmental Protection, said the 10-year-old grass-roots organization was disappointed in the final version passed by Congress.
"It really gives a short shrift to conservation and it still continues to subsidize the well-established oil and gas industries that really don't need subsidizing especially when (crude) oil is $60 a barrel," she said.
What the heck...
It's just a few billion. Drop in the bucket. < /sarcasm>
This article must be in error. Everybody knows that Bush is on an extended vacation and is languishing in Texas. Just ask the MSM.
corporate welfare at it's most extreme.
Why can't legislators KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!
They need to be punished for that. Legislation that has that kind of impact on our lives should have at least some semblance of input from the people. This is a sign that our servants have gotten a little big for their britches and need to be taken down a peg or two.
"It does not include Bush's desire to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration."
That says it all! What a bummer!
This bill is also the secret weapon against Muslims, it's so full of pork that now they should want to leave.
Why can't a judicial approval be hung on a budget bill too?
"1,724 pages" and no ANWAR drilling. Who won in 2000, 2002 and 2004??????
------
You just identified this piece of crap legislation for exactly what it is. Nothing but political rhetoric (that is how it got socialist support) containing really no substance to REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL, AND DRILL FOR OUR OWN TO INCREASE SUPPLY AND REDUCE COST.
Bush is just legacy building -- passing a near useless, so-called energy bill to be able to say "I DID IT !!!".
ANWR is a sure thing attached in another bill that liberals can not filibuster.
BUSH GETS ANWR TOO!!
But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.
Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing ANWR drilling as part of a budget procedure that is immune to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is still being worked out.
Unlike normal legislation, the budget process is not subject to filibuster, so only 51 votes will be needed in the Senate for it to clear Congress and be signed into law by the president. Just such a tactic was used a decade ago when Congress approved ANWR drilling as part of the budget process, only to see the measure vetoed by then-President Clinton, a drilling opponent.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said her state's delegation is determined to push for opening the refuge, calling it "the final component" of a national energy plan that she hopes will be put in place later this year.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/arctic.refuge.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Looks like they spent a lot of "energy" on the bill but produced very little output.
Interstate commerce, I guess.
This amounts to $4.10 annually for each person in the country. This, in fact, IS PEANUTS and only confirms that the federal government is incompetent. It took them four years to come up with this pathetic response to the critical problem of energy independence. Our only hope is that with oil selling for $60 per barrel, private enterprise will develop alternative sources of energy while congress continues to wallow in its egotistical dreamworld.
The main problem I have is government giving money to private industry, who is already raking in billions. Sometimes incentive bailouts are needed but it's neither conservative or capitalistic to give handouts where none is needed. If incentive bailouts are used, it should be in loans not handouts. The oil and gas giants are laughing all the way to the bank. They didn't have to do anything and they got profit. Reminds me of current welfare, do nothing, collect something.
But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.
-----
Sure hope you are right. We need non-OPEC oil bad. And as much as we can supply from our OWN LANDS. This move has so many upsides to it, including leverage in fighting the war on terror.
Sounds like they used two well used Washington tricks.
1. Some pork for everyone.
2. When it comes to making hard choices make them take effect in 2015 (that's why the line is this "won't take effect right away"). That way if anything goes wrong the authors won't be around to take the blame and also they can always come up with new legislation that supercedes this one. Kind of like abolishing the death tax for one year in 2010.
Disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.