Boehner Slams Democratic Agenda As Recess Approaches

By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service

House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized Democratic priorities over the past few months, including the stimulus plan, the cap-and-trade bill, and the ongoing debate over health care reform, during a press conference Thursday.

Rep. Boehner also argued that legislation is being passed too quickly in Congress. When asked whether he has read every bill during his time in Congress, he admitted that he “may not have read every word in every bill,” but claimed that he tried to understand all of the legislation he supported. He said that during his time as Majority Leader, the Republicans always allowed bills to remain under consideration for at least 24 hours before a vote.

Rep. Boehner dismissed a compromise recently reached by conservative and progressive members of the Democratic Congress over health care legislation, and predicted that Americans would pressure their elected representatives to reject the legislation over the summer recess.

Citing multiple polls, Rep. Boehner argued that most Americans do not support health care reforms being advanced by the Obama administration and Congress. “This isn’t about Republicans,” said Boehner. “This is the American people’s opposition that is growing.” He argued that the “American public doesn’t want the government involved and delivering their health care.”

Rep. Boehner acknowledged that some private sector associations support the proposed health care reform legislation, but said that “privately they have serious concerns.” He said that there is “muted opposition from the lobbyist groups because they basically have got a foot in each camp.”

“None of the committee chairman that are writing this bill have any private sector experience....for that matter, neither does the president,” said Rep. Boehner.

Great Plains GOP Senators Say No To Cap And Trade

By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service

Three GOP senators from Great Plains states criticized the cap-and-trade bill that recently passed in the House of Representatives, and is currently being reviewed in the Senate.

According to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Ky.), the bill is a "wet dog that is not welcome in the farmhouse or the ranch." Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) firmly said that "this bill is not going to work in the Senate," and claimed that it lacks "even a 5% chance of being successful."

Sen. Johanns, formerly the Secretary of Agriculture under President George W. Bush, said that the legislation would hurt the economy, especially in agricultural communities. "The average farmer will never buy into the idea that maybe, just maybe, if they pay higher production costs and go through this regimen that is going to be established, that they might do better," he said.

The Senators dismissed testimony given by the United States Department of Agriculture to the Agriculture Committee on Wednesday. "The USDA analysis...has holes enough to drive a grain truck through," said Sen. Roberts. He said it was based on assumptions of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], which he argued is "driven by their agenda. I don't think it is driven by accurate assessment...as to the effect on farmers and ranchers in rural, small-town America."

Sen. Johanns said he has worked with the economists of the USDA in the past, and that they produce "excellent work." He maintained, however, that this analysis is "tragically incomplete" and it is "remarkable how deficient it is in analysis."

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) questioned how effectively the legislation could protect the environment, arguing that other carbons will not act to cut carbon emissions, thus stripping the U.S. of competitive advantage in the marketplace. He said that the "costs are real and the savings are theoretical."

The GOP Senators suggested that another piece of legislation could gain bipartisan support. "We ought to be serious abut reducing CO2 emissions," said Thune. He emphasized "incentives for rural renewable energy production," which he said would avoid a "crushing economic burden on American business."

Senate, Experts Discuss Ways To Regulate Toxic Emissions

By Annie Berman - Talk Radio News Service

At a hearing Thursday, the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety discussed the most cost-effective way for Congress to regulate toxic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and mercury.

“We need Congress to develop a comprehensive three-pollutant bill that provides protective and reasonably attainable reductions of SO2 and NOx emissions, incorporates the regulation of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants,” said Randall R. LaBauve, Vice President of Environmental Services for the Florida Power & Light Company, who testified at the hearing.

A “cap and trade” policy continues to be a controversial issue regarding the regulation of toxic emissions. Though almost all of the witnesses at the hearing were in favor of a cap and trade policy, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was clearly against it.

“We’ve had testimony before this committee by Oak Ridge scientists, that cap and trade was a very inefficient way to deal with fuel because it raises the price, that’s for sure, but it doesn’t reduce the carbon. It only raises the price by 10 or 20 cents, but that’s not enough to change behavior,” said Alexander.

John B. Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the United States Government Accountability Office was one of several at the hearing who recommended using sorbent injections to reduce mercury emissions. Sorbent injections function essentially like a filtering system to remove mercury from releasing into the air.

“When the results of 50 tests of sorbent injection systems at power plants [were conducted]…mercury reductions of at least 90 percent [had] been achieved,” said Stephenson.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) also shared some alarming statistics regarding toxic pollutants in an attempt to demonstrate the urgency of this issue.

“More than 24,000 Americans die a year from sulfur dioxide emissions alone. Unfortunately, many of our fellow Americans are exposed to these pollutants every day. Six out of 10 Americans – more than 186 million people – live in areas where air pollution levels endanger lives.”

Graham Says Senate Rejects Certain White House Plans

By Joseph Russell- Talk Radio News Service
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.Car.) said Tuesday that there is clear bipartisan rejection in the Senate of several key White House initiatives, including energy and health reform. Graham said the Senate will continue to work on prudent legislation, but the legislative proposals from the White House are risky to American consumers and are unsustainable.

"I think the one thing I can tell you is that the public government option is not going to make it," Graham said. "That's all I can tell you. I think there is a lot of talk about different approaches, but the government option will kill private sector competition."

Republicans have been concerned about growing budget deficits and many, including Graham, believe that entitlement reform in areas like Medicare and Medicaid must be made if the Obama administration proceeds with its attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system.

"We can't have sustainable health care reform until you address the two government programs that exist today," Graham said. "Medicare and Medicaid combined in about ten years, are going to be the equivalent of today's entire budget. They're are on a unsustainable growth path."

Democratic lawmakers view cap-and-trade legislation as a possible source of income for health care reform. The hurdle for Democrats is finding a way to obtain majority support for such legislation in the Senate. According to Graham, the legislation was rejected in a bipartisan fashion because "it would create a $680 something billion cap-and-trade tax. . . that will have really hurt the American consumer and business."

Other opponents of cap-and-trade legislation argue that it will force businesses to relocate to countries without such laws, and that it will alienate poor communities by forcing taxes to increase.

Tax Experts Spar Over “Cap And Trade” Policy

By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service

The Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing to assess what impact the Obama administration’s carbon cap and trade program might have on tax legislation. 

The committee’s testimony dealt with a narrow set of questions such as whether or not carbon allocations should be distributed for free or auctioned off, and whether or not carbon allocations should be considered income or capital asset. In addition, the committee debated whether or not previous legislation governing the emission of sulfur dioxide can be used as an analogy to carbon taxes.

A panel of tax policy experts offered contradictory pieces of advice to the committee. 

“In considering the direction for the tax treatment of CO2 allowances, the most logical place to start is with the current treatment for SO2 [sulfur dioxide] and NOX [nitrous oxide] allowances. These allowances were established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” said Keith Butler, Senior Vice President of Tax at Duke Energy. “These allowances should be granted with zero-tax basis and they should not be taxed upon granting it, because that just creates an ultimate cost that I don’t think we need to create,” he said. 

“To use that distant stuff from the past for this new market which is so vast is, you know, I mean, why don’t we bring over the laws from Amsterdam and apply them in New York today,” said Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He added that carbon allocations should be treated as income rather than capital gains, and that following the precedent set by SO2 caps is “mind-boggling.” “What you’re gonna do is throw out a couple hundred billion dollars,” he said. 

According to committee chairman Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the SO2 cap governed less than 120 facilities, whereas a carbon cap and trade program would affect over 7,000 entities if enacted. All of the panelists agreed that the analogous legislation would have to be revised if a carbon cap and trade proposal is enacted, and Hufbauer said that a “blank slate” would be most appropriate.