Menendez Fumes After Murkowski Blocks Big Oil Bill

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was not a happy camper Thursday, mocking Alaska Republican Lisa Mukowski -- who earlier objected to advancing his bill to raise the liability cap on spills caused by oil companies - for wanting to "study" the bill more before allowing a vote on it.

[This bill] is pretty simple," he said, waving a piece of paper. "It has a very fundamental premise: Big oil should be responsible for the payment of its pollution."

The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010 proposes raising the liability cap for oil companies from $75 million to $10 billion. Menendez wrote the legislation in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill a few weeks back.

BP, which operated the rig that exploded, causing millions of barrels of oil to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, has accepted full responsibility for both the damage and cleanup costs associated with the spill. However, under current law, the company's liability for damages such as lost wages and economic suffering is capped at $75 million. BP officials say the company has spent almost $350 million so far to clean up the Gulf, and its CEO has pledged to honor all "legitimate" claims.

However, Murkowski said she was hesitant to support the legislation out of fear that it would discourage smaller companies from developing offshore.

Menendez said Thursday that he would continue looking for ways to advance the legislation.

Boehner Continues To Hammer Democrats On Spending

From the nearly-one trillion dollar healthcare reform bill, to the failure to pass crucial budget legislation, House Democrats have displayed “an inability to govern,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday.

During his weekly briefing with reporters, Boehner assailed his colleagues across the aisle for ignoring the will of the American public, and pledged that his party would do everything in its power in the coming years to reverse the policies imposed by Democrats.

Taking aim at the healthcare reform bill, passed almost two months ago, Boehner promised that Republicans are “gonna rip out every mandate and tax increase contained [in the bill].” Before Boehner made his remarks, a Republican aide distributed a letter the Leader had written to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blasting the administration for “misleading” the public about the true costs of the reform bill.

On the appropriations front, Boehner sounded skeptical about the odds of Democrats getting anything done anytime soon, reminding reporters that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said late last year that she would not force her fellow Democrats to take any “tough” votes in 2010.

“What arrogance,” he remarked.

Interestingly, when asked what solutions Republicans have in terms of cutting spending and lowering the budget, Boehner replied only that House Republicans will soon be entering the “listening phase” of their agenda planning.

Kerry, Lieberman Unveil Climate Bill Without Graham

Joined by over a dozen stakeholders, but absent the presence of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put forth their much-anticipated energy bill today, the American Power Act (APA).

After months of delay, the duo decided they could no longer wait for Graham, an original co-author of the bill, to move forward with them. Graham has expressed displeasure over the Obama administration's calls for Congress to take up work on immigration reform. Earlier in the day, however, Kerry told MSNBC that Graham will support the bill, which If enacted, he said, would leave a positive print on just about every aspect of American society.

"The bill that we are introducing today...will restore America's economy and reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology," he said. "It will create millions of jobs, move us towards energy independence and strengthen America's security. And it will give us cleaner air."

The Kerry-Lieberman bill is being framed as somewhat of a compromise between the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed by the House last year, and the broad energy proposal laid out by President Obama. On a controversial item known as cap and trade, a system by which companies are provided with economic incentives for limiting their emissions, the APA would gradually implement the policy, first on utilities and industries, and then on the broader economy by 2025. The President's plan calls for the imposition of an economy-wide system of cap and trade, while the House bill would mandate cap and trade for utilities, industries and big oil starting in 2012.

Similar to both the White House plan and the House bill, the APA aims to lower emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by the year 2050. Yet unlike them, the APA contains support for nuclear energy and natural gas, items that could win the support of conservative Democrats and Republicans. In addition, its price tag is slightly lower than both its counterpart in the House and the administration's plan. Another key difference is its inclusion of language that would allow states to opt out of offshore drilling within 75 miles of their coast.

But although the bill attempts to usher in a new era of clean energy usage in the U.S., many of its provisions already face legions of criticism. For starters, opponents say it will ration energy use for Americans by increasing the cost of everyday consumption for businesses and individuals.

Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Talk Radio News Service that the APA amounts to nothing more than a giant energy tax.

"The only way to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels is to raise the cost of energy," he said. "They have to raise costs high enough so that people are forced to use less, that's how this works."

In addition, there are concerns about the bill's impact on the nation's coal industry, which has lately been the focus of an intense debate in Washington over energy safety due to the tragic deaths of dozens of miners in West Virginia earlier this year. Though the APA contains weaker financial restrictions on coal production than the House bill, critics believe the administration favors moving completely away from coal. In fact, days before he was elected President in 2008, Mr. Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

According to Lieberman, the net effect of smaller investment in coal and natural gas will be increased unemployment.

'Sure, there's a few 'make-work' jobs created in specialized industries that will deal with reducing emissions," he said. "But overall the impact is negative; higher cost of energy and fewer jobs."

Click here for more on the American Power Act

Measure To Reform Fannie And Freddie Fails

A trio of Senate Republicans failed in their quest to put an end to the days of taxpayer bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Amendment, sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), would have forced the government to relinquish control of the two government-backed mortgage giants within two years.

Recently, Fannie Mae, which lost $13.1 billion during the first quarter of this year, asked the government for an additional $8.4 billion to stay afloat. Similarly, Freddie Mac asked the government for $10.6 billion in funds after reporting a loss of $8 billion for the quarter. Combined, the two companies have borrowed $145 billion from the Treasury Department since the government took complete ownership of them during the heart of the nation’s financial collapse in 2008.

"We are not saying that Freddie and Fannie have to go out of business. We're saying we want them to be a business that is on a level playing field with other private sector competitors," said McCain to reporters today, hours before his amendment went down in a 56-43 vote.

Though most Republicans supported the item, it had its fair share of skeptics.

First, critics, including many Democrats in Congress, believed the measure would unwind Fannie and Freddie so quickly that it would create chaos throughout the entire housing market. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has said he supports reforming the two GSE’s, called the amendment a huge gamble.

“Simply to abolish Fannie and Freddie...and not do anything to replace the functions they are now performing with a conservatorship, would be a disaster for housing, and therefore for the economy as a whole,” he said last week.

Furthermore, the liberal Center for American Progress recently referred to the legislation as “The Credit Crunch Restoration Act of 2010,” arguing that by abolishing a large chunk of the mortgage backing industry, millions of Americans would lose access to credit.

Sanders Amendment To Financial Reform Bill Passes Easily

An amendment to increase the transparency through which the Federal Reserve (Fed) operates passed on Tuesday by a vote of 96-0.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a one-time audit of the powerful central banking agency, going back to December 1, 2007. At a press conference with reporters immediately following the vote, Sanders praised his colleagues for their unanimous support.

"What just transpired is an historic vote for the American people in terms of finally bringing transparency to what is perhaps the most powerful federal agency, and that is the Fed," he said.

A similar amendment that would've required the GAO to conduct a far more wide-ranging audit, and would've made such audits recurring, failed by a vote of 62-37. The measure was the product of Sanders's initial, less watered-down effort to shine more light on the Fed, mirrored after a proposal put forth by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) that passed the House last year.

After Sanders modified his amendment, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) re-introduced the original version.