Capitol Hill Update XII

The Senate passed legislation to let the State Department settle all remaining lawsuits against Libya by U.S. terror victims but remained deadlocked over legislation to rein in excessive energy speculation (which also failed in the House).

The House passed several bills including one to help protect college students against lending abuses, enforce pay equity, require the FDA regulate tobacco, and boost veterans spending. The House Judiciary Committee also voted to cite Karl Rove for contempt of Congress.

Al Gore challenges America to use 100% renewable energy in 10 years

I applaud Al Gore for his insistent calls to reform America's energy policy. No matter how much people may disagree with his politics, he's been consistently warning America about the need for change and the consequences of inaction for the last twenty years. Even ten years ago, despite pretty much unanimous consensus on Al Gore's claim that the world was getting hotter and that it was inextricably linked to human activity, this assertion was questioned and challenged by both the right and the mainstream media. These days, you have even guys like T. Boone Pickens coming out talking about how we need to reduce global warming and dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Pickens has put forth a very bold plan to reduce reliance on oil greatly through the use of wind power in the Texas Panhandle. Recently, Al Gore issued a challenge to reduce America's dependence on foreign non-renewable resources to nothing within ten years. It's a very, very difficult proposition and if America decides to take up the challenge, probably the most difficult transition we will ever make. But if we did it and even mostly succeeded, America would be so much better off that this generation of leaders would leave a landmark; a legacy for all our succeeding generations that wouldn't be forgotten until the idea of fossil fuels was forgotten. From Al Gore's speech:

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

We need to accept this challenge. We need to meet this challenge, not just so that we can quit spending hundreds a month that we don't have on gas that we will never get back, but so that our descendants will never have to face the issues we are now.

Rick Noriega has joined in the call for change by saying that all of Texas should be powered by renewable resource electricity by 2019.

Mr. Noriega said Texas' energy security is incumbent on moving from nonrenewable energy sources – particularly fossil fuels from "unstable" foreign nations – to American-generated renewable sources.

The U.S. must also increase fuel efficiency standards, invest in renewable energy development and improve the electricity distribution system – goals that Mr. Noriega says his opponent, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, hasn't prioritized or has actively fought against.

Help Al Gore. Elect men like Rick Noriega. It's time to end this problem.

Capitol Hill Update IX

In the Senate, Republicans continued their obstructionist streak and prevented the Senate from voting on a bill that would have extended energy tax credits.

In the House, Democrats inexplicably capitulated to President Bush by allowing the passage of a FISA update bill that gives amnesty to telecommunication companies involved in illegal NSA spying. Oh, and they passed new funds for the war in Iraq without conditions again too. Not a good week, guys.

The Senate will likely pass both measures sometime next week, unfortunately.

Goings-On in Congress This Week

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides - White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers - to a federal grand jury. As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a civil suit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 236-to-182 to repeal $18 billion in tax breaks for big oil companies to help pay for developing renewable energy sources, but Bush has threatened to veto, of course.

In the Senate, Republicans blocked a vote on legislation that would let bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt and spend more money on fixing abandoned properties, in an effort to curb rising home foreclosures. They also disallowed a vote on a bill by Sen. Russ Feingold to get most U.S. troops out of Iraq by July and cut off funding for the war, after first allowing discussion on it to play up the "success" of the surge.

Congress increases CAFE requirements for the first time ever

What's this, a mandatory requirement for 35 miles per gallon? Wow!

The bill's centerpiece is the boost in the minimum fuel-efficiency standard for passenger vehicles, the first to be passed by Congress since 1975. It requires new auto fleets to average 35 miles a gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase from today's 25-mile average. By 2020, the measure could reduce U.S. oil use by 1.1 million barrels a day, more than half the oil exported by Kuwait or Venezuela and equivalent of taking 28 million of today's vehicles off the road.

Is America going green? Eh, not so much. It pretty much works the same way current CAFE standards work. The average mileage of the entire line of vehicles an auto manufacturer produces will now have to meet 35 miles per gallon. That's an increase of 10mpg over current standards, but, for example, if a company produces 2 vehicles, 1 SUV and 1 car, their average mileage must be 35 mgp. Does that require both vehicles averages go up? Nope. Let's say that now, the SUV gets 20mpg while the car gets 30mpg. Average of 25. Ok, to increase that overall average to 35, you can either raise both numbers by 10mpg, or you can increase the car's by 20 mpg, or any combination whatsoever that adds up to 20. And that would be fine, but the automaker can easily defeat this by producing 2 more lines of cars. Now, the SUV doesn't have to raise its efficiency whatsoever, while the three cars absorb all the increase, like this: the SUV still only gets 25mpg, while three cars get 38.33mpg apiece. And you can spread that out even further by building more cars.

That would be all well and good, because it still causes the mileage to increase on the majority of cars, but it pisses me off that people who want to drive planet-killing vehicles get a free pass to continue doing so at will. Of course that doesn't matter so much to me because the next time I buy a car I'll be getting a hybrid, hopefully something that gets more than 40mpg. But still, we don't need to allow gas-guzzlers that get 13mpg to even exist.

Anyway, this bill comes with a host of other revolutionary energy regulations:

The law says that at least 36 billion gallons of motor fuel a year should be biofuels by 2022, most of it in "advanced biofuels," not a drop of which are commercially produced today.

[...]One portion of the bill sets new efficiency standards for appliances and will make the incandescent bulb -- invented two centuries ago and improved and commercialized by Edison in the 1880s -- virtually extinct by the middle of the next decade. The bill will phase out conventional incandescents, starting in 2012, with 100-watt bulbs, ultimately ceding the lighting market to more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

The commercial building industry could also be transformed by new incentives for energy-efficient windows, equipment and design. The federal government is supposed to make all of its buildings carbon-neutral through energy efficiency and clean energy use by 2030.

It's a step in the right direction, but obviously doesn't go far enough. We need more action on encouraging development of solar energy, plus we need to seriously end the wasteful extravigance of vehicles that get less than 25mpg. You'd think people would have been impressed by now with the importance of divorcing ourselves from oil, but no, once people get to the showroom it's a question of their manhood or how safe a vehicle they can get for their kid (never mind that rollovers cause a disproportionate amount of fatalities).

There are provisions for both encouraging the growth of corn ethanol as well as further provisions for encouraging the transition from corn ethanol to other ethanols. One would hope these incentives work, but the legislation may not be strong or specific enough to see that it does.

Thankfully, Congress managed to avoid attaching any incentives for drilling for natural gas or oil domestically. While this bill is a great start, there's still a ways to go.

Legislative Week in Review XI

Congress voted for an omnibus spending bill that capitulated on both President Bush's spending caps (and in a separate bill for SCHIP) and his demand for more war funding (to a tune of $70 billion).

After courageous opposition from Sens. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold and others, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put on hold, for now, a FISA update bill that would include telecom immunity.

The Senate also passed additional Myanmar sanctions and a a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems and help states with the cost. The House already passed the bill, but it is unclear yet if Bush will veto it or not.

In one major victory this week, the House of Representatives approved an energy bill to boost fuel efficiency that was then signed by President Bush. The House also backed a 7-year terror insurance bill (conceding to the Senate), the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act, mortgage tax relief, and a House commission made new ethic recommendations.

Additionally, Congress passed a bill strengthening citizen access provided by the Freedom of Information Act and an AMT fix, but one that does not pay for itself.

UPDATE: Bush pocket vetoes the defense appropriations bill. He signed the CHIP extension, an open government bill, and a Sudan divestment bill, however.

Is sugar the sweet solution?

Xanthippas forwarded me this blog post from Balloon Juice which links to a post over at The Agitator which finally results in a link to a WaPo article about the Sugar Lobby. If the idea that there is a lobby specifically for the sugar industry surprises you, it shouldn't. Every major area of agriculture has their own lobby, and you probably have heard of the corn lobby. So anyway, I do suggest reading those blog posts and the original article. If I have time, I'll get around to writing up a post about the evils of the sugar lobby (and the corn lobby), but what I want to respond to is some of the issues raised by Michael D. in his post. (Please don't sue me for copyright infringement for copying and pasting your whole post!)

Radly Balko has some issues with U.S. sugar lobby (they’ll create a lobby for anything, won’t they?) I encourage you to read it and the accompanying Washington Post article. Radly sums it up as follows:

If an “alternative energy” source is so efficient that it needs massive government subsidy to event (sic) exist, much less survive, it’s not a viable long-term source of energy.

No kidding (and, by the way, it’s exactly what’s happening with the corn-based ethanol industry here.)

But look to Brazil – they’re doing just fine with sugar cane ethanol. In fact, Brazil has achieved what has eluded us forever – energy independence. In fact, three-quarters of its automobiles are able to run on ethanol, and there is an ethanol pump at just about every fuel station. Cane ethanol now accounts for 40% of Brazil’s transportation fuel. And one thing Brazil has figured out that we have not: corn-based ethanol (the type we produce here) is not energy efficient. It takes nearly as much energy to produce corn ethanol as it saves (cane ethanol doesn’t need to make the transformation from carb to sugar) – not to mention the adverse effects that increasing corn prices will have on the world economy.

All this leads me to ask a question, because I have not been able to find an answer. Maybe I’m not looking hard enough. Can we produce sugar cane here? And, even if we could, would enough people have the guts to stand up to the corn lobby to make anything happen anyway?

Or, are we all just that apathetic?

Now, if you read the comments left on this post there's already been a lot of enlightening discussion. There are a lot of pros and cons on these issues, but I feel that in general there's a lack of informed debate going on. On the one hand you have people writing how corn ethanol is a boondoggle. Their arguments are that it'll raise food prices, it's not efficient enough, it's only profitable because of government subsidies, people aren't factoring in the pollution caused by growing the corn, etc, etc. On the other hand you have the corn lobby telling us that corn-based ethanol is the way of the future with less pollution, will give us energy independence, bring more money back to America, etc, etc.

But when I hear individuals talk about it they usually have either decided to be for it or against it based on no more than a couple of points. What annoys me the most is those who have decided that biofuels are a bust because they're currently expensive to produce and are not a magic solution that makes everything better in one go. Anyhow, I'll get back to that later. Let's address the first point that Radly Balko brought up:

If an “alternative energy” source is so efficient that it needs massive government subsidy to event (sic) exist, much less survive, it’s not a viable long-term source of energy.

No kidding (and, by the way, it’s exactly what’s happening with the corn-based ethanol industry here.)

According to this article published in 2006:

[O]ne major subsidy is the ethanol program, currently with a $0.51 per gallon subsidy, which will in the near future amount to a bill of over $3 billion annually on 6 billion gallons of production.

The last time I was at the gas station near here that has an E85 pump, it was selling for nearly a dollar less than regular unleaded. Take away that subsidy and you still get a price nearly a half-dollar less than the cheapest grade of gas. Not to mention that the price of corn isn't nearly as volatile as the price of gas. It varies some, but not really week to week or day to day. Does corn ethanol need a subsidy to exist? No, not really. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my post that I linked to, oil is massively subsidized.

There is growing awareness in this country that the full cost of using oil for transportation is "subsidized" -- that is, gasoline prices paid by consumers do not reflect the full economic cost to society. The true cost is hidden by myriad direct and indirect public subsidies, which include

• reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry



• lower than average sales taxes on gasoline



• government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists



• "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution

You can read the full article for yourself, but basically we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars per year. And what would we be doing in the Middle East if not for oil? If not for oil, we'd pretty much treat that area of the world like we do Africa. How much has the war in Iraq cost us now? To me, the idea that somehow there's something more wrong with corn ethanol than with oil simply because there's a per-gallon subsidy for ethanol whereas oil's is hidden away is just wrong-headed. The corn subsidy is not an argument against ethanol, despite the fact that I favor getting rid of corn subsidies.

Then some opponents attack the energy efficiency of corn based ethanol and declare it to be energy negative. Someone has already done the job of refuting that for me, so I quote Wikipedia:

Opponents of corn ethanol production in the U.S. often quote the 2005 paper of David Pimentel, a retired Entomologist, and Tadeusz Patzek, a Geological Engineer from Berkeley. Both have been exceptionally critical of ethanol and other biofuels. Their studies contend that ethanol, and biofuels in general, are "energy negative", meaning they take more energy to produce than is contained in the final product.

A 2006 report by the U.S. Department Agriculture compared the methodologies used by a number of researchers on this subject and found that the majority of research showed that the energy balance for ethanol is positive ('1.24 for corn ethanol). A 2006 study published in Science analyzed six studies, normalizing assumptions for comparison; Pimental and Patzek's studies still showed a net energy loss, while four others showed a net energy gain. Furthermore, fossil fuels also require significant energy inputs which have seldom been accounted for in the past.

Not that I'm questioning their authority, but how did an entomologist and geologist get into this anyway? So look, most people agree that corn ethanol is energy positive. Not incredibly energy positive to be sure. But it's viable.

Let me bring the point about corn subsidies back up, because perhaps some people misunderstand what that subsidy does. Corn is America's #1 crop, both in acreage under cultivation and sales. From the Christian Science Monitor, an interview with Michael Pollan:

And we subsidize this overproduction. We structure the subsidies to make corn very, very cheap, which encourages farmers to plant more and more to make the same amount of money. The argument is that it helps us compete internationally. The great beneficiaries are the processors that are using corn domestically.

Now who would that be, and why?

• Of 10,000 items in a typical grocery store, at least 2,500 use corn in some form during production or processing.

• Your bacon and egg breakfast, glass of milk at lunch, or hamburger for supper were all produced with US corn.

• Besides food for human and livestock consumption, corn is used in paint, paper products, cosmetics, tires, fuel, plastics, textiles, explosives, and wallboard – among other things.

• In the US, corn leads all other crops in value and volume of production – more than double that of any other crop.

• Corn is America's chief crop export, with total bushels exported exceeding total bushels used domestically for food, seed, and industrial purposes.

In short, the price of corn in the world is determined by America's corn subsidy, which keeps us overproducing this crop. Which, you may say, is great for people in third world nations that need our food. Hopefully they can get it. But that's also the reason it makes sense to use corn for ethanol. Corn is plentiful. Corn is grown in truly vast quantities. This is for political reasons that have nothing to do with whether we want or need that much corn. I strongly recommend reading Michael Pollan to understand why we actually need not to produce that much corn. On the one hand, we need to quit making corn artificially bounteous and cheap because the uses we put it to such as cattle feed and hfcs are absolutely terrible. On the other hand, without the subsidy, there simply wouldn't be as much corn to go around. So you have a choice, get rid of the corn subsidy to discourage corn ethanol production (since the low price of corn is the main reason for ethanol's profitability, not the ethanol subsidy) and dramatically cut back the amount of corn for world food consumption, or keep the subsidy which will only encourage more profitable uses for the corn than selling it at rock-bottom prices to third-world nations, namely ethanol production. The best argument against corn ethanol is this artificial over-production of corn, but no one wants to face the reality of what ending that over-production would mean.

I'm going to leave that alone for now and move on to the next point. As Michael D. points out in his post:

But look to Brazil – they’re doing just fine with sugar cane ethanol. In fact, Brazil has achieved what has eluded us forever – energy independence. In fact, three-quarters of its automobiles are able to run on ethanol, and there is an ethanol pump at just about every fuel station.

Can we produce sugar cane here? And, even if we could, would enough people have the guts to stand up to the corn lobby to make anything happen anyway?

There are several answers here, all of which lead pretty much to the fact that the US cannot rely on sugarcane as a source of ethanol.

The US does produce sugar. Nowhere near on the scale that Brazil does, but sugarcane only grows in tropical or subtropical environments. Sugar beets produce slightly more than half of US sugar production (excluding hfcs, that is). Unfortunately, sugar beets require four times as much land as sugar cane to produce the same size crop. Sugar beets are also a rotational crop, which means that averaged over a period of years, their production is going to much lower than sugar cane because they have to take some years off. The USDA puts US sugar production at 7,665,000 tons for 2007. Brazil's is 32,100,000 tons. You can already see that the environment is partially responsible for this huge disparity in production. Brazil can grow that much and probably more. There's no way the US could hope to match that production. Now to put to rest the idea that sugar prices are depressed in the US, thus discouraging sugarcane and sugar beet growth, the US lays tariffs on all sugar imports to keep prices up. The USDA manages all sugar production and they only allow domestic sugar producers to make so much, and they only let so much come in from the world market. In short, they're artificially keeping all sugar producers profitable instead of making them compete (so much for laissez faire, eh?).

Basically, even if it there was a substantial profit motive, not enough sugar can be cultivated in the US to meet even a small fraction of ethanol demand. That's another reason corn is far more prevalent right now. And of course, lastly there's the USDA study which opines that sugar ethanol is unprofitable at current gas and corn ethanol prices:

Producing ethanol from sugar beets and sugarcane is estimated to be profitable at current ethanol spot prices and at about breakeven over the next several months, excluding capital replacement costs, based on current futures prices for ethanol. Over the longer term, the profitability of producing ethanol from sugarcane and sugar beets depends on the prices of these two crops, the costs of conversion, and the price of gasoline. A moderation in the price of gasoline and a return in ethanol prices to their historic relationship with gasoline prices could push the price of ethanol well below breakeven levels for converting sugar beets and sugarcane into ethanol. However, the market for crude oil remains very volatile and highly sensitive to events in the Middle East, making it very difficult to forecast future trends in crude oil and gasoline prices.

The "now" of the quote is during 2006, when their estimated cost of gas was $4/gallon. Not that that won't happen again, but that's their calculated break point for profitability. So until we reach that again, there's not a lot of incentive for sugar producers to contribute to ethanol.

All well and good, but what if we ended the tariffs and imported sugar for use as corn ethanol? The question there is whether there's enough world capacity to actually supply us with the quantities of sugar we need to make ethanol in an amount substantial enough to replace gasoline. While there is excess capacity in the world market, it's really not enough. I read somewhere that if all of America's corn were devoted to ethanol, it would replace 12% of total gas consumption. Borrowing from wikipedia again, the US had 243,023,485 passenger vehicles registered in 2004. Now quoting the Michael D's post again, "Cane ethanol now accounts for 40% of Brazil’s transportation fuel." I can't seem to find a solid answer for how many cars Brazil has, but given that Brazil's population is about 183 million, and that the US has the highest per-capita ownership of cars, I'd have to say there can't possibly be any more than 150 million Brazilian cars. 40% of that would 60 million vehicles. That's a wild guess but if anything it's high, so let's just stick with it. Now Brazil might be able to provide enough sugar to fuel twice that many cars. Or even three times that many. But Brazil has an output of sugar roughly 4.5 times higher than the US. The US doesn't have the extra capacity to use sugar for fuel at all. Besides that it makes more money for farmers to sell it as sugar. Basically sugar's a no-go just for economic reasons.

People tend to get dogmatic about their arguments and I try not to fall into that. Corn ethanol is not the best solution. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Sugar ethanol simply can't provide much ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is by far the best, but current technologies do not allow mass production or cost-effective production. And because of this there are people who say that biofuel is not the answer. But you know, technologies come along, especially with a little government help (like the railroads, highways, phones, computers, etc). Corn ethanol will never be the perfect solution, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Couple any biofuel with hybrid cars and you get a powerful answer to oil. And the more we start to use them, the better they'll become. We can use corn ethanol as a transitional state to get us started on the path to clean fuels. There's no real reason not to. Anything is better than the pollution and war that oil brings.

Someday we'll get to the point where we derive most electricity from sunlight. Someday our cars will run on switchgrass and batteries that we charge at home off of sunlight. But we can't make that leap in one generation of vehicles. We can't avoid the problems that transitional technologies will bring. That doesn't mean there's a reason not to embrace them whole-heartedly in the meantime, and always be looking down the road at better options. We have to start somewhere, right?

Legislative Week in Review VIIII

Returning from break, the Senate quickly approved the Peru Free Trade Agreement which, having already passed the House, will be signed by President Bush. The Senate also passed a bill, 88-5, that provides a one-year fix for the alternative minimum tax but without matching the cost of the tax relief with new tax revenues, after Republicans removed a provision that taxes investors in a swap (which is included in the House version).

The House approved energy legislation, 235-181. The centerpiece of the bill is a requirement to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such increase since 1975, when Congress enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements. Senate Republicans blocked the bill, however, because ito would provide also $21.5 billion in tax incentives, mostly to promote development of alternative fuels, financed by eliminating or reducing $13 billion in subsidies for major oil and gas companies. And it would require 15 percent of electricity be produced from renewable sources by 2020. The tax and renewables mandate additionally drew a veto threat from the White House. A rewrite is likely.

A conference between the Senate and House intelligence committees voted to outlaw the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA against suspected high-level terrorists. The provision to the annual intelligence authorization bill would require all American interrogators to abide by the Army Field Manual.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a bill to combat global warming, 11-8, that would require carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 70 percent by 2050 and allow trading of emission allowances, known as a "cap-and-trade" system.

Lastly, congressional Democrats demanded today that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two terrorism suspects.

Legislative Week in Review IV

Yesterday, the House of Representatives attempted to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion, but still fell a little short of the required 2/3rds majority. This, despite the fact that 81% of Americans supported the bill, including most Republicans. Speaker Pelosi says she will offer a new bill in two weeks; aides said Democrats will make cosmetic changes, "making it clearer that the bill does not allow illegal immigrants to be covered and capping the income eligibility level," in order to pick up the requisite number of Republican votes. The Senate already has enough votes.

Also this week in the House, legislation to continue a ban on Internet taxes, a resolution condemning the State Department for its refusal to divulge public details on Iraqi corruption, and a media shield bill to protect the confidentiality of reporters' sources in most federal court cases all passed overwhelmingly but have yet to be considered in the Senate. Meanwhile, a proposed resolution that would recognize the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during WWI as genocide looks less and less likely to make it to a floor vote with key Democrats opposed over souring relations with modern-day Turkey, despite promises by Speaker Pelosi. This makes one wonder what the point was of picking a fight with the White House that didn't wasn't necessary - just to lose it.

The House is also considering legislation to impose tighter sanctions on Burma's military junta,

In committee news, Rep. Henry Waxman is still looking into how the Bush administration misinformed about pre-war intelligence. Charging that a top Yahoo! Inc. official provided incorrect information regarding a Chinese human rights case to Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday called on the company’s leadership to appear before the panel.

Over in the Senate, the Intelligence Committee approved immunity for telecom companies involved in illegal NSA spying as part of the new FISA update, 13-2. Only Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden voted against it. However, Sen. Chris Dodd has put a "hold" on the bill and is threatening to filibuster it should Majority Leader Reid decide to bring it to the floor anyway. The House was about to consider its version of the wiretap bill this week (which does not include the immunity provisions, which is why the White House and Republicans are opposed) but it was pulled from the floor after Republicans offered a "poison pill" amendment.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for AG pick Michael Mukasey. White he started off disavowing torture and vowed not to bow to White House pressure, the nominee later demurred about what constitutes torture and stated he opposed restoring habeas rights to Gitmo detainees. However, it is likely he'll be confirmed. A committee vote could happen as early as next Thursday with a full floor vote by the end of the month, though chairman Leahy says this could be delayed if they do not receive written statements by Mukasey in a timely fashion.

Sen. Obama has asked that the head of the Justice Department's voting rights division be fired for saying voter ID laws hurt the elderly but aren't a problem for minorities because they often die before old age. Bush's family planning nominee is also facing considerable opposition (for her anti-contraception views), as is his pick to head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. And Majority Leader Reid signaled today the Senate may take up the controversial nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit soon, seeking a vote to limit debate on the nomination Tuesday. If that succeeds, the Senate would vote on whether to confirm him. Southwick's record has evidence of racial prejudice.

The Senate Banking Committee approved measures dealing with Sudan divestment, flood insurance, and a 7-year extension of the Terrorist Risk Insurance Act which the White House has said it will not veto despite opposition. The Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on a bill that would make cell phone companies give their customers a break on early termination fees by prorating the penalties so the cost declines with time. And Sen. Schumer has threatened legislative action unless U.S. credit bureaus stop charging fees for freezing a consumer's credit history report to prevent identity theft.

Harry Reid is also hoping to finally get into conference negotiations for energy legislation with the House, if Republicans will allow it. The two houses passed completely separate bills, but Reid and Speaker Pelosi have laid out general guidelines. The White House has threatened a veto.

Lastly, the Senate rejected cuts to community anti-crime grants and NASA spending and overwhelmingly passed the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act which the White House has threatened to veto, like so many budget bills.

UPDATE: You can show your support for Sen. Dodd's hold here.

Legislative Week in Review III

According to The Politico, House Democrats have set a record for the number of roll call votes they've held.

Senate Republicans' demand an Ethics Committee inquiry into Larry Craig has backfired. The GOP had hoped it would force Craig to resign, but he called their bluff by reversing his decision to resign Sept. 30 unless a court let him drop his guilty plea. "Now Republicans are powerless to stop a process almost certain to do more political damage to the party in general than to a retiring senator," according to the AP.

Key members of Congress vowed Friday to defend the independence of the CIA's inspector general and put an end to the agency's probe of its own internal investigator. And four congressional committee chairmen also accused the State Department of suppressing information about corruption inside Iraq's government. A non-binding measure on the issue will be debated on Tuesday.

The House of Representatives voted 389-30 on Tuesday to make it easier to convict private contractors of defrauding the U.S. government during wartime by creating a new federal criminal statute banning contracting abuse associated with military operations and reconstruction efforts. It also would ensure federal courts have jurisdiction in all cases. A similar measure was approved in April by the Senate Judiciary Committee but Republican objections have prevented it from getting a quick floor vote. Other House bills passed this week include one to ensure durable infant products will be sold with a postage-paid registration card so consumers would be informed quickly of recalls, a call for an end to worldwide genital mutilation which passed 378-0, and legislation that would end the use of private tax collectors by the IRS, 232-173 (it faces a veto threat and a Republican filibuster in the Senate, however).

As Xanthippas has followed, the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27 to 21 to recognize the WWI massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide, and can now be sent on to the full House for a possible vote. President Bush opposed the measure because an enraged present-day Turkey says it will harm diplomatic relations with the U.S., but Bush himself labeled it genocide in the 2000 presidential campaign.

As I've followed, the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees both approved the FISA bill. President Bush is threatening a veto because it lacks immunity for telecom companies and sunsets after 2 years. Most Republicans have fallen in line, of course.

On their plate in the coming weeks, the House will consider a reporter shield law, an extension on an Internet tax moratorium, informal negotiations with the Senate on energy legislation, paid parental leave for federal employees, more subprime loan proposals, NFL pensions, and a veto override attempt for SCHIP this coming Thursday. Senate confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey begin on October 17th, Sens. Lieberman and Warner will introduce a bill to create a carbon auction system with mandatory emissions caps ("cap and trade") to help combat global warming, the Ag committee may or may not take up the farm bill soon after intense battles over it, and some Senators are considering making wealthy private colleges spend more of their endowments to lower the cost of tuition.

Solar power update

Well, solar power has been a long time coming and many detractors still don't consider it even a realistic potential source. New technology, however, may make it possible for solar power to replace existing fossil-fuel based energy. Sci-fi authors have been talking about beamed solar power for a long time, but only recently has it become a possibility.

A proposal is being vetted by U.S. military space strategists that 10 percent of the U.S. baseload of energy by 2050, perhaps sooner, could be produced by space based solar power (SBSP). Furthermore, a demonstration of the concept is being eyed to occur within the next five to seven years.

Less sci-fi, but perhaps more practical, are new types of ground-based solar energy collectors, which, with new technologies, are expected to be able to take over enery production for a large part of the US grid.

If those claims stand up, however, solar-thermal plants could provide a significant chunk of the Southwest's—and potentially the nation's—electricity. "The maximum you can get into the grid is about 25 percent from solar," including photovoltaics, Mills says. But "once you have storage, it changes from this niche thing to something that could be the big gorilla on the grid equivalent to coal."

Furthermore,

Assuming that their storage system works, Mills and his colleagues calculated in a paper presented today at the Solar Energy Society World Congress in Beijing that such solar-thermal power plants could match the electricity needs of both California and Texas. And, by combining a system that would meet the needs of California and Texas, solar-thermal plants could supply 96 percent of the national electricity demand. "The entire energy use of 2006, the current technology including storage would use a patch of land 92 miles by 92 miles," O'Donnell says. "Ten percent of the [Bureau of Land Management] land in Nevada is enough."

It's not sci-fi anymore. The sooner we adopt this technology and cut free from fossil-fuels, the better.

House Passes Major Energy Bills

The House of Representatives passed two bills today to promote energy security and renewable energy, though the White House has issued veto threats for both.

The first bill, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, passed 241-172 and requires electric utilities to use at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels, urges new efficiency standards for appliances and lighting, authorizes special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand, calls for more energy efficient "green" buildings, and instructs the Department of the Interior to look for ways to cut carbon emissions.

The second bill, the Renewable Energy Tax Act, passed 221-189 and revokes $16 billion in tax breaks to oil companies while offering tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts. The legislation would also end a tax break for buying large SUVs, known as the "Hummer tax loophole" which allows people who buy some of the most expensive SUVs to write off much of the cost, and provides tax incentives for producing flex-fuel vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol and for gas station operators to install E-85 pumps.

Neither bill address fuel efficiency or ethanol, issues that will be thrashed in reconciliation with a similar measure the Senate passed in June.

Goings-On in Congress

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, revealed that before signing the bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress earlier this year that repealed a Patriot Act provision to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was able to install George Cardona in the Central District of California. The bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, had been on the president’s desk since June 4th but was not signed by him until yesterday.

On Wednesday, the House passed by voice vote a NRA-approved gun bill in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. The measure would make more electronic data available to states for checking the criminal and mental health records of people who want to purchase guns. It would authorize new funding to help states enter felony convictions, mental disability and domestic violence records into the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Gun dealers use NICS, created by a 1993 law, to check whether a person qualifies to buy a firearm. CQ warns the bill may not pass the Senate as easily, but most think it will ultimately be passed and signed by President Bush.

In another round of votes on the Iraq war before the July Fourth recess, the Senate will cast separate votes on whether to cut off funding for the war after March 31st of next year, order troop withdrawals within four months, impose stricter standards on the length of combat tours, and rescind congressional authorization for the Iraqi invasion. The House will consider similar proposals later on.

The measures will be offered as amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill, but will probably fall short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and pass. However, this is seen as part of a strategy by Democrats to keep pressure on Republicans over the war.

Democrats were forced to set aside — at last until next week — their renewable fuels proposal after it became clear they lacked the 60 votes to proceed.

The bill, which will be combined with other energy legislation in the House, would require power companies to increase use of wind turbines, solar panels, biomass, geothermal energy or other renewable sources to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity by 2020. Only about 2.4 percent of the country's electricity is produced that way now. But the Senate reached an impasse when it rejected a GOP alternative that would have allowed utilities to meet the requirement by also building more nuclear power plants and taking conservation measures.

Republicans balked and refused to allow a vote on the bill. Now it's uncertain if it will get final approval before the Fourth of July recess.

Finally, Senate leaders announced a deal last night to bring back a comprehensive immigration reform bill either late next week or the week after for more floor debate. The measure had been pulled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week after the Senate failed to invoke cloture, mainly because of Republican opposition. President Bush met with Republican senators and told them he would approve $4.4 billion in immediate funding for border security measures in order to get Republicans back on board. It will be one of 20 new amendments to be offered on the bill. Still, no one knows if it will ultimately get the support needed for passage, but things look better than they did just a week ago.

UPDATE:

The House today passed a $37.4 billion budget bill for the Department of Homeland Security on a 268-150 vote, but Bush has threatened to veto because it exceeds his funding request. An even more generous bill funding veterans programs and military base construction also exceeds Bush's funding request, but passed by an overwhelming 409-2 vote.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl blocked a vote in the Judiciary Committee on whether to authorize subpoenas to the Justice Department to obtain secret legal opinions and other documents related to the National Security Agency’s program of domestic eavesdropping. The action will block the vote for a week. After the vote next Thursday, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the committee, "can decide whether to issue the subpoenas or use them as leverage in negotiations with the Bush administration over access to the documents."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today he might have to pull the energy bill off the floor next week to revive the immigration bill , although he vowed to complete both before closing shop for the July Fourth recess. “If this [energy] debate doesn’t speed up, we’ll have to move to end debate,” he said, according to CQ. “If they do, Democrats are prepared to work through the weekends and the July 4 district work period to accomplish our goals.”

The U.S. Senate begins debate on the Employee Free Choice Act on Monday, with a cloture vote expected Wednesday, June 20. The bill, which makes it easier for workers to join a union, passed the House months ago 241-185 but faces a tough, 60-vote hurdle in the Senate.

Phew.