Senate Watch: Bingaman, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Corker, Dorgan, Graham, Kerry, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murkowski, Nelson, Reid, Sanders, Snowe 1

Posted by Brad Johnson Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:08:00 GMT

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

E&E News If enacted today, CEDA can create countless new jobs this year in new companies across the country by helping breakthrough clean energy technologies get introduced into U.S. markets and expanded as quickly as possible. CEDA would facilitate tens of billions of dollars in new investment in entrepreneurial companies with innovative technologies by giving investors the confidence that financing will be available later for first commercial-scale deployment. This is critical in helping emerging clean tech companies grow in an environment that is highly capital intensive, making our economy more competitive, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

E&E News This is a new low, in my humble opinion. [The resolution is an] unprecedented move by a United States senator and her co-sponsors to overturn a health finding made by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests. We know we’ve got to find 60 votes, but we also know we cannot and must not repeal a scientific health finding.

Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

E&E News There are provisions that are more difficult for us to accept if they’re not part of a comprehensive bill. In a broader package I am more understanding of some of the other regional concerns.

Robert Casey (D-Penn.)

E&E Neews It’s going to be very hard to do something on that [climate] in the next weeks and months. And after that, I can’t tell. But we have to have substantive strategies on job creation.

Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)

E&E News You’re [Secretary Chu] slow-walking things that are proven, and wanting to spend lots of money on things that are unproven. It makes me less trustful of the department.

Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)

E&E News It [the energy committee bill] will move us in the direction of a lower-carbon future. Offshore drilling is a carrot. It’s a carrot that’s already been consumed.

E&E News My guess is that it probably wouldn’t meet with favor when it hits the White House, if it ever passes the House and the Senate.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

E&E News I can get every Republican for an energy independence bill, OK? But there are not 60 votes. You’re not going to get the nuclear power provisions you want unless you do something on emission controls.

E&E News I’ve got a lot of Republicans who are really excited about the energy part. What I’m telling them, and what I’m telling y’all, if you want energy independence, the way to get there is through cleaning up the air, and we’ll see what happens.

E&E News If you vote to pre-empt the EPA, which I’m willing to do, I think there’s a burden on you as a U.S. senator to deal with the issue.

John Kerry (D-Mass.)

E&E News It’s [the Murkowski resolution] not going to affect what we’re doing one way or another.

E&E News We certainly had a good discussion on the issue [with the White House]. And I think they’re committed to moving forward, as are we. We’re already working on text,” Kerry said. “We’re putting a bill together. ... If you give us just a few days here, we’ll be ready to give you a little update. We feel very good about where we are.

Mary Landrieu (D-La.)

E&E News The industries that I represent want the sharpest, most carefully crafted tools available, and I don’t think that can be achieved using a Clean Air Act that wasn’t designed for that purpose.

Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)

E&E News I am very concerned about the burden that EPA regulation of carbon emissions could put on our economy and have questions about the actual benefit EPA regulations would have on the environment. Heavy-handed EPA regulation, as well as the current cap-and-trade bills in Congress, will cost us jobs and put us at an even greater competitive disadvantage to China, India and others.

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

E&E News The decision to offer this resolution was brought about by what will happen in the wake of the EPA’s decision to issue the endangerment finding,. You see, it is not merely a ‘finding.’ It’s actually a floodgate, and under the guise of protecting the environment, it’s set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy.

E&E News Murkowski was unclear on the timing of a floor vote but said she would hold out hope on reaching a broader agreement on energy and climate change. “At this point in time, yes, that is what our plan is,” she said. “But I think we also need to be nimble. Things change around here. If there should be something groundbreaking that comes about with a proposal out there, I’m not going to foreclose the discussions.” She was optimistic that she would be able to get the support needed to clear the Senate. “I do believe we will have the 51 votes,” she said, but “I don’t have a cheat sheet today that says 51 votes.”

Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

E&E News I think it’s a situation where the legislative branch needs to tell an alphabet agency that we don’t need them looking over our shoulder, critiquing whether we’re moving quickly enough for them.

Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

E&E News Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), also pushed back at the Murkowski amendment, including the prospect it would undercut the EPA’s auto regulations. She put the onus on Republicans for not being more open to agreement on a broader climate bill. “There is no disagreement that it would be better for Congress to pass bipartisan comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that creates jobs, protects consumers, improves our energy security, and invests heavily in making our economy and businesses more efficient and globally competitive, than for EPA to move forward with command and control regulation of global warming pollution,” she said. “Unfortunately, thus far, very few Republicans have shown any willingness to work with us on that more constructive solution.”

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

E&E News This country has put more money into nuclear fuel than any other fuel. I’d like to see volunteers, maybe Kentucky or Tennessee would volunteer, for places to store all that [nuclear] waste. I usually don’t see a lot of hands going up.

Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

E&E News That’s [EPA regulation] a very serious step, frankly. I’ve expressed concerns, deep concerns, about that approach, absolutely.


Leave a response

  1. todd Runestad Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:29:29 GMT

    These obstructionists are out of hand. They say it’s not appropriate to invest in clean technologies or cut pollution when we’re in a down economy. But does anybody really believe that they’ll all of a sudden start pushing for these things when the economy gets going again? Don’t make me laugh.

    Even the conservative Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can regulate CO2 as part of the Clean Air Act. Clearly, the EPA came out with its finding to prod Congress to act, which is exactly what most people in America not beholden to the fossil fuel industry, as well as most people in the world, want.

    Renewable fuels are the answer, and that includes the new PRISM nuclear power plants that leave waste for only 300 to 500 years, which is a doable time frame. If southern Senators say they don’t have wind or solar resources available to them, they can have all the nuclear plants.