Yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner asked whether Blue Dog Democrats would vote for H R 6899, Speaker Pelosi’s latest non-energy energy bill. The results are in and they tell quite the tale. Here are all of the Blue Dog Democrats voting for this non-energy energy bill:

Arcuri, Baca, Bean, Bishop (GA), Boren, Boswell, Boyd (FL), Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Davis, Lincoln, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gordon, Harman, Herseth Sandlin, Hill, Holden, Mahoney (FL), Matheson, Melancon, McIntyre, Patrick Murphy, Michaud, Moore (KS), Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Linda Sánchez, Loretta Sanchez, Scott (GA), Space, Thompson (MS), Tanner and Wilson (OH)

Of the 53 BDD’s, 42 voted for H.R. 6899. Only John Barrow and Jim Marshall voted against it. That means that 80 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats voted the same way as such environmental extremists as Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, George Miller and Jim McDermott.

What’s really gotta hurt the BDD’s is this quote from their intrepid leader:

“We’re not trying to give incentives to drill, we’re giving incentives to invest in renewables and natural gas that will take us where we need to go,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters before the vote.

I hope that the NRCC is paying attention. They should be making videos as we speak highlighting that quote. Anytime one of these representatives says that they voted to increase drilling, the video should run with Ms. Pelosi’s quote plastered on the screen for at least 5 seconds, followed by the representative saying that he/she voted for more drilling.

Personally, I’d love hearing Ms. Pelosi explain how that quote fits with this part of her official statement:

The legislation is a bold step forward, helping end our dependence on foreign oil and increase our national security. It launches a clean renewable energy future that creates new American jobs, expands domestic energy supply, including new offshore drilling, and invents and builds more efficient vehicles, buildings, homes, and infrastructure. It will lower costs to consumers and protect the interests of taxpayers. It is a comprehensive strategy, and the product of bipartisan compromise. It offers Republicans who want a comprehensive approach the choice to make sure Big Oil pays its fair share.

Simply put, the bill doesn’t increasing drilling in any meaningful way. The green energy options are years away. This isn’t “a bold step forward.” It’s just more of the same. How is this appreciably different than the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that President Bush signed in 2007? Here’s what the White House fact sheet says about EISA:

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will help reduce America’s dependence on oil by:

Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. Although the President proposed a more ambitious alternative fuels standard in his State of the Union Address, the RFS in the bill he signed today represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels.

Reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. Last January, the President called for the first statutory increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles since they were enacted in 1975, and the bill he signed today delivers on that request. The bill also includes an important reform the President has called for that allows the Transportation Department to issue “attribute-based standards,” which will ensure that increased fuel efficiency does not come at the expense of automotive safety.

The bill includes provisions to improve energy efficiency in lighting and appliances, as well as requirements for Federal agency efficiency and renewable energy use that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example:

The bill will require all general purpose lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star® products or products designated under the Energy Department’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) by the end of Fiscal Year 2013.

The bill will update the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to set new appliance efficiency standards that will save Americans money and energy. The Act amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

The bill will establish an Office of High-Performance Green Buildings (OHPGB) in the U.S. General Services Administration. This office will promote green building technology implementation in Federal buildings.

Neither bill does anything appreciable to increase domestic oil supplies or shrink our dependence on foreign-bought oil. If that isn’t the definition of same old, same old, then a definition doesn’t exist for that cliche.

Here’s the graphic on Ms. Pelosi’s Speaker website:

The last bullet point says that this bill will produce “greater energy efficiency and conservation.” for the sake of this discussion, let’s say that that’s true. The next question I’d ask is whether this bill has better efficiency provisions than the efficiency provisions in the American Energy Act. My bet is that they aren’t.

This bill isn’t going anywhere. President Bush said that he’ll veto it if it reaches his desk. That isn’t likely because it’s likely that the bill won’t be considered by the Senate:

Even if the bill reaches the Senate, he said, the bill is in trouble, given strong opposition by Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-LA), who calls it “dead on arrival” since it fails to provide revenue sharing between the states and federal government. “The Senate will never pass a bill without revenue sharing, in my view,” she was quoted as saying.

Ms. Pelosi just said that the bill doesn’t provide incentives for increased drilling.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Leave a Reply