In The News
AS DRUMBEAT RISES, SENATE MOVES TOWARD COAL VOTE IN JUNE.
Wednesday May 30, 2012
AS DRUMBEAT RISES, SENATE MOVES TOWARD COAL VOTE IN JUNE.
The Senate has until about June 20 to take up a resolution from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., rolling back the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules slashing mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants. The resolution – which would require only a 51-vote majority – would come as one of a series of moves over the past year aimed at putting moderate Democratic incumbents from coal-dependent states – particularly Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Sherrod Brown of Ohio – in a tight spot with voters in their reelection races. Republicans spent Tuesday beating the drums on coal issues, as Romney gave a speech in Craig, Colo., slamming Obama’s coal regulations.
Politico Pro: Committee OKs two slaps at green military
Friday May 25, 2012
Republicans joined forces with a couple of panel Democrats to win 13-12 victories on two amendments to the defense authorization bill at a closed-door markup, according to sources.
One amendment from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is similar to House-passed language that would prevent Pentagon funds in fiscal year 2013 being spent for the sole purpose of purchasing alternative fuels if those fuels are more expensive than conventional fuels. It would make an exception for continued testing of alternative fuels.
National Journal: McCain, Inhofe Push Through Amendment Limiting Pentagon's Green-Energy Program
Friday May 25, 2012
The bill, expected to hit the Senate floor in June, injects the Defense Department's once low-profile energy programs into the center of the bitter political fight over so-called green energy.
Proponents of the military's alternative-energy initiatives said they were shocked and disappointed that the Senate panel approved the limitation provision in the annual defense authorization bill. Similar language was included in a companion bill passed by the Republican-controlled House last week, but it was expected that it would fail in the Democratic-majority Senate.
National Journal: McCain Hits Pentagon Push for Clean Energy
Wednesday May 23, 2012
Posted by Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov
In the News...
National Journal
McCain Hits Pentagon Push for Clean Energy
May 22, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.
On Tuesday, McCain slammed the Defense Department’s “Operational Energy Strategy,” unveiled last June, as an attempt by Obama to exploit the military in order to promote his clean-energy agenda—at the expense of national security and taxpayer dollars.
“Adopting a ‘green agenda’ for national defense of course is a terrible misplacement of priorities,” McCain told National Journal Daily in an interview on Tuesday.
The administration’s first priority, he said, “is of course the defense of the nation, not a green agenda, so again, [it’s] a clear indication that the president doesn’t understand national security.”
The decorated Vietnam War veteran and 2008 Republican presidential candidate took one other punch at the Pentagon program: “It certainly is an incredible waste of taxpayers’ money that should be devoted to caring for the men and women who are serving in the military and their security needs.”
He said he intends to offer several amendments to the defense authorization bill that would slash spending on the alternative-energy programs, though he declined to describe his proposals in detail. The Armed Services Committee is expected to mark up the bill behind closed doors this week.
McCain is crafting the amendments with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who is perhaps Washington’s most vocal skeptic of climate-change science and a frequent critic of renewable-energy programs. Inhofe is the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
It’s unlikely the amendments will make it through the Democratic-controlled Senate. But McCain’s forceful and public attack on the Pentagon’s renewable-energy initiatives abruptly politicizes an issue that until now had escaped the bitter partisan fighting that surrounds most energy debates in Washington.
President Obama and military leaders, particularly Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, have presented the Pentagon energy programs—some of which predate Obama’s election in 2008—as driven purely by the goal of protecting national security and the safety of troops. That framework has until now allowed the energy initiatives to escape the scathing criticism the GOP usually directs at federal spending on clean energy.
Defense Department officials contend that the new energy initiatives are not driven by any kind of “green” agenda, but rather by the goal of reducing the military’s dependence on oil, which they say costs the Pentagon up to $20 billion annually and has led to the deaths of hundreds of troops and contractors, killed while guarding fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The moves, which include promoting the use of solar-powered electronics on the front line, hybrid tanks, and “smart grids” on military bases, could also increase frontline fighting power, military officials say.
But they will cost more money in the short term. For example, the Navy last year bought 150,000 gallons of algae-based biofuels from a South San Francisco company called Solazyme, and people familiar with the deal said the price was at least an order of magnitude greater than what the military pays for conventional fuel to power its jets, ships, and combat vehicles—about $3 to $4 per gallon.
In the long run, the Navy’s Mabus has argued, a scaled-up military demand for renewable energy could help drive down the price of such biofuels, and would ultimately serve to help the military strategically.
But that’s a tough argument to make even in flush times, and at the moment, the military is staring down the barrel of a mandatory $500 billion budget cut set to kick in early next year. With that in mind, McCain said he challenged Mabus over the biofuels purchase at a recent hearing. “What’s that all about when we’re having to retire cruisers early?” he said.
McCain’s attacks are mobilizing advocates of the program. One think tank, the Truman National Security Project, held a press call with retired Marine Lt. Gen. John Castellaw on Tuesday afternoon, urging Congress not to cut the energy programs.
“Moving away from oil ... ensures we remain the most capable and effective fighting force on the planet,” Castellaw said. “And that is what this is all about. This is not about politics or saving the polar bears. It is about being effective as a fighting force.”
McCain, Inhofe take arms against green military spending
Wednesday May 23, 2012
Panel ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) are teaming up to try to trump military green funding during the panel's closed-door consideration of defense authorization legislation.
"Adopting a quote green agenda for national defense of course is a terrible misplacement of priorities," McCain told reporters Tuesday. "Priorities first is the defense of the nation, not a green agenda."
McCain and Inhofe — who in the past have been divided on the Arizona senator's support for a cap-and-trade program — agree that money should be better spent in the face of military budget cuts.
Inhofe told POLITICO on Monday that he is working on at least one amendment similar to House-passed language that would block the Pentagon from spending money on alternative fuels that cost more than petroleum-based fuels.
Inhofe Op Ed: Global warming alarmism, anyone? The public is cooling to the rhetoric
Tuesday May 22, 2012
To be sure, President Obama has many major green "accomplishments" to tout. By imposing backdoor global warming regulations through the EPA, he is fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket." By vetoing the Keystone pipeline, he gave the far left what one of his supporters called the "biggest global warming victory in years." By finalizing the most expensive EPA rule in history, he is making good on his campaign promise that if anybody wants to build a coal-fired power plant they can-"it's just that it will bankrupt them." And, he succeeded in throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars out the window on companies like Solyndra, which he said would lead us to a "brighter and more prosperous future."
Battle over military green energy efforts heads to the Senate
Monday May 21, 2012
Inhofe urges EPA opponents to lobby their senators on air rule veto
Thursday May 17, 2012
Inhofe, who is probably the Senate's most vocal critic of EPA air quality and climate rules, appeared on a webcast hosted by the conservative group FreedomWorks to officially unveil his resolution to veto the so-called Utility MACT rule. He told participants to call their senators -- especially Democrats -- to urge them to support the measure.
The resolution, S.J. Res. 37, can now be brought to the Senate floor at Inhofe's discretion and be passed with a 51-vote simple majority. It is not expected to pass, but Inhofe has said he will bring it to the floor anyway to force senators to cast politically difficult votes that he says will show their level of support for the coal that "runs this machine called America."
Inhofe, who is top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, did not name the Democratic duo who would be supporting the bill. But their voting records make Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) the most likely candidates.
Inhofe said he had discussed the resolution with other Democrats from fossil fuel states who he said should have an interest in supporting the resolution of disapproval, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Virginia Democrats Mark Warner and Jim Webb also appeared persuadable, he said.
"I think they might do it," he said. "I think they need to be encouraged by people in Virginia."
But two other Democrats who face tough races for re-election this year have not indicated they will not support the measure, he said: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
Inhofe panned Casey as not sufficiently supportive of his state's natural gas development as well as of its coal interests and said Brown was contributing to job losses in coal-rich Ohio. But he said both men should support his resolution if enough voters ask them to. Still, he predicted their defeat and that Republicans would "take over the Senate and have two to spare."
Sen. Carper On Svinicki Nomination: "I think she has done a good job...the president wishes her to be reconfirmed"
Tuesday May 15, 2012
Dems Have Real Frustration With Obama War on Coal
Monday May 14, 2012
- Cecil Roberts, the president of the United Mine Workers of America, traveled the country for Barack Obama four years ago. He hoped to persuade skeptical working-class white voters in places like southwestern Virginia and southern Ohio to vote for an African-American with an unusual name. Last month, Mr. Roberts went on a West Virginia radio show with a different message. He compared the way Mr. Obama's administration has treated the coal industry to the Navy SEALs' killing of Osama bin Laden. He now says the union might choose not to endorse Mr. Obama and sit out the election instead. Mr. Roberts's transformation suggests larger problems for Mr. Obama in the coal-producing regions of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia, all swing states. The shift is driven largely by anger over Environmental Protection Agency regulations-rules the coal industry says will make it so expensive to operate coal-fired power plants that no more will be built. Mr. Roberts and his union worry the result will be lower demand for coal as electricity-generating capacity shifts away from the fuel. "We've been placed in a horrendous position here," Mr. Roberts said in an interview. "How do you take coal miners' money and say let's use it politically to support someone whose EPA has pretty much said, 'You're done'?" Danger signs for Mr. Obama appeared as recently as Tuesday, when more than 40% of voters in West Virginia's Democratic primary cast their ballots for a felon in prison in Texas rather than for the president. Democrats said the result reflected anger at Mr. Obama's energy policy. WSJ, Trouble in Coal Country for Obama May 11, 2012