The U.S. House is back in session this week, and it’s time for Bleeding Heartland to catch up on Congressional news from before the July 4 recess. After the jump I’ve posted details about how the Iowans voted on various bills and motions related to energy policy.
As a bonus, I’ve included some textbook sleight of hand by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. DCCC press releases hammered Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King for backing “Big Oil” interests during House debate on the Strategic Energy Production Act. But the DCCC glossed over the fact that Latham’s opponent in Iowa’s third district, Representative Leonard Boswell, was one of 19 House Democrats to vote with Republicans for final passage of that very bad bill.
The House debated H.R. 4480, the Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, on June 21. This legislation combines seven bills previously approved by either the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Natural Resources Committee. Pete Kasperowicz summarized some of the provisions for The Hill.
The House passed legislation Thursday that would require decisions to use oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to be matched by a decision to expand domestic oil leasing, and would also require the Obama administration to assess how environmental rules affect gas prices. […]
Aside from linking the use of oil reserves to more domestic energy production, the bill also more broadly seeks to speed up the oil drilling permitting process. Republicans argued during the debate that expanding access to oil resources would not just help U.S. energy security, but would also help create jobs. […]
In addition to the oil-and-gas leasing provisions, the bill [would] block EPA from completing a trio of air pollution rules until a new interagency committee studies the cumulative effects of an array of EPA policies on fuel prices and the economy.
The Democratic opposition was backed by a threat from Obama to veto the legislation.
This Strategic Energy Production Act passed by 248 votes to 163. Iowans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) joined all but five House Republicans to support the legislation. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was one of 19 House Democrats who also voted yes. Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the bill, along with most of the Democratic caucus.
Boswell has repeatedly backed more domestic oil drilling over the years, but the EPA-related provisions of this bill are worse than your standard-variety “drill here, drill now.” John Walke explained on the Natural Resources Defense Council blog that the bill
would force the head of EPA to adopt unhealthy clean air standards for smog pollution in the face of cost complaints directed at setting healthy standards. The legislation then would compel EPA to misrepresent those unhealthy air quality standards to Americans as sufficient to achieve “clean air.” […]
For over 40 years, the Clean Air Act has required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set honest air quality standards that are “requisite to protect the public health” with an “adequate margin of safety.” [pdf] Clean Air standards must be honestly based on the best health science and medical understanding concerning how much pollution is harmful to humans. Standards may not be weakened or distorted by political or other non-medical factors.
A unanimous Supreme Court upheld this principle, saying that the Clean Air Act “unambiguously bars cost considerations from the [air quality standard]-setting process.” But today’s House vote attempts to overturn that decision and the plain language of the Clean Air Act as well.
Incidentally, one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia, wrote that unanimous ruling in the 2001 case Whitman v. American Trucking Associations.
Although I’m used to Boswell disappointing me on environmental issues, it’s sad to see him go along with such an assault to the Clean Air Act. Boswell knows better. He joined Braley and Loebsack in supporting a Democratic amendment that would have restored the “40-year requirement that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency base its clean air (smog) standards on the latest science and what is best for public health.” (Latham and King were part of the majority that rejected this amendment.) But the EPA language wasn’t a deal-breaker for Boswell when the Strategic Energy Production Act came up for a final vote.
A day after the House approved H.R. 4480, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put an unflattering spin on some of the floor votes by King and Latham. The press releases were virtually identical. Here’s the Latham version:
VOTE ALERT: Congressman Latham Lets Big Oil Allies Keep Subsidies and Tax Breaks, Export Oil Overseas
Congressman Tom Latham’s (IA-03) priorities are clear: Big Oil companies’ profits and their taxpayer subsidies come before Iowa middle class families. Congressman Latham hasn’t done anything to lower gas prices, but he voted yesterday to let the biggest oil companies keep getting more than $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies and let new American oil be exported to other countries instead of using it here at home to reduce gas prices. Sure enough, Congressman Latham received $52,250 in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests.
The Energy Department recently revealed that, last year, U.S. oil companies exported more than they imported for the first time since 1949.
“With gas prices squeezing already tight family budgets in Iowa, Congressman Tom Latham let the biggest oil companies keep their billions in taxpayer subsidies while they continue to ship new oil overseas instead of using it here at home,” said Jesse Ferguson of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Congressman Latham wants to let Big Oil companies get new drilling leases and ship that oil overseas while they keep their $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Big Oil makes more profits and gets more from the taxpayers while Congressman Latham gets more Big Oil campaign contributions to back his re-election – more of the status quo from Republicans in Congress.”
The five biggest oil companies made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011 – up 75 percent from 2010.
BACKGROUND
Congressman Latham Voted to Help Protect Tax Breaks for Oil Companies. On June 21, 2012, Congressman Latham voted against a motion to prohibit new leases for major integrated oil companies unless they agreed not to take special tax breaks. The motion also would encourage the major integrated oil companies obtaining oil and gas leases under the legislation to use only materials made in the United States in drilling operations and to avoid outsourcing jobs. The motion was introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter. (HR 4480, Vote #409, 6/21/12)
Congressman Latham Voted Against Ensuring Oil Produced Here Benefits American Consumers. On June 21, 2012, Congressman Latham voted against an amendment that prohibited oil and gas produced under new leases authorized by this legislation from being exported to foreign countries, ensuring American resources remain here to benefit American consumers. (HR 4880, Markey amendment, Vote #400, 6/21/12)
U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949. “The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said.” (Bloomberg News, 2/29/12)
In March 2011, House Republicans voted against a measure which would have prohibited any major integrated oil company from being eligible for any tax benefit or relief under related provisions of the tax code. (HJ Res 44, Vote #153, 3/1/11)
In April 2011, House Republicans voted for the FY12 Republican budget, which secured no deficit-reduction contribution at all from closing special interest tax breaks, such as tax breaks for big oil companies. (H Con Res 34, Vote #277, 4/15/11; Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/20/11)
How convenient: all three Iowa Democrats in the U.S. House voted the “right” way on each vote mentioned in the DCCC’s press release. The Slaughter language was the motion to recommit the Strategic Energy Production Act with instructions, typically the House minority party’s last attempt to derail passage of the bill. The Markey amendment was one of a dozen Democratic amendments rejected on mostly party-line votes during House consideration of the bill. (Click here and here for links to all the House roll call votes on H.R. 4480.)
The DCCC spin puts Latham and King in the “Big Oil” camp, implying that House Democrats stand for middle-class interests against major oil companies. You’d never guess that Boswell, who is running against Latham in IA-03, voted for final passage of the Strategic Energy Production Act.
This kind of stuff is why I stopped donating to the DCCC years ago.
Speaking of political spin, Braley didn’t call attention to his vote against the Strategic Energy Production Act. Instead, his office sent out this June 21 press release highlighting an amendment Braley co-authored (emphasis in original).
Bipartisan Braley Amendment Protecting Manufacturing Jobs in Marshalltown Passes US House
Amendment would reverse regulation threatening Marshalltown refrigeration manufacturerWashington, D.C. – A bipartisan amendment written by Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) that would remove burdensome government regulations on refrigerated deli-style display cases that threaten the future of their manufacture in the United States was adopted by the US House today.
Lennox Industries, Inc., which makes the deli-style display cases covered by the regulation, has a manufacturing facility in Marshalltown, Iowa, that employs about 1,000 people. The adoption of the amendment will help protect Iowa manufacturing jobs.
“When government regulations defy common sense and put jobs at risk, it’s time for a change,” Braley said. “With their regulation, the Department of Energy has effectively outlawed refrigerated display cases found in grocery stores and delis. The regulation is unfair and harmful to manufacturing in Iowa and America.
“The bipartisan amendment adopted today will reverse this misguided regulation and protect Iowa jobs. I’m proud to work across the aisle with Representative Westmoreland to pass this common sense solution that won support from both parties.”
The problem remedied by the amendment stems from the federal government’s interpretation of a 2005 law that increases energy efficiency standards for appliances. The Department of Energy believed it was required by the law to include refrigerated deli display cases in the same category as standard refrigerators. However, the inherent design of such display cases makes it impossible for the equipment to reach the minimum efficiency standards set forth for refrigerators in the 2005 law, effectively outlawing their manufacture in the United States.
Braley and Westmoreland’s Better Use of Refrigerator Regulations Amendment creates a new energy efficiency category for refrigerated deli-style display cases, effectively reversing the regulation and safeguarding the product’s continued manufacture in Marshalltown and other locations in the US.
The amendment was added to HR 4480, the Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, by a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote.
A copy of the Better Use of Refrigerator Regulations Amendment can be downloaded at the following link: http://go.usa.gov/vQM
A photo of the refrigerated deli-style display cases manufactured by Lenox can be viewed below:
Braley usually supports energy-efficiency measures, but you know what they say: all politics is local. Marshalltown is part of the new first Congressional district, where Braley is seeking a fourth term.
In other energy-related news, the House voted on June 21 “to instruct conferees on the highway bill to keep language […] that would block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attempt to regulate coal ash.” Coal ash is a waste product from coal combustion, and there is strong evidence that its residue contaminates groundwater and harms human health. Latham, King, Boswell, and Loebsack were among the 260 yes votes on the motion urging House negotiators not to let the EPA regulate coal ash. Braley was the only member of the Iowa delegation to vote against that motion to instruct.
The final version of the transportation bill did not include the coal ash language or a provision demanding approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which Boswell, Loebsack, Latham, and King all supported in May. Bleeding Heartland will discuss the transportation bill in more detail later today.
Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.