<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:xcal="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xcal" xmlns:enc="http://www.solitude.dk/syndication/enclosures/">
  <channel>
    <title>Hill Heat: White House Threatens Veto of Energy Bill</title>
    <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/03/white-house-threatens-veto-of-energy-bill</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>Science Policy Legislation Action</description>
    <item>
      <title>White House Threatens Veto of Energy Bill</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In a &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/files/12-3_ene.pdf"&gt;letter to Congress&lt;/a&gt;, White House economic advisor Allan Hubbard reiterated President Bush&amp;#8217;s October 15 veto threat of the &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/01/congressional-leadership-announce-energy-bill-deal"&gt;energy bill deal&lt;/a&gt; brokered by the Democratic leadership, leaving no room for compromise from the president&amp;#8217;s demands.&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;blockquote&gt;On October 15, I wrote you to outline a basic framework for a bill that would not compel the President&amp;#8217;s senior advisors to recommend a veto. Based on the limitd information we have received, it seems the provisions under discussion would not satisfy those criteria. In fact, it appears Congress may intend to produce a bill the President cannot sign.

	&lt;p&gt;The Administration continues to believe that &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; the elements described in my earlier letter constitute the appropriate framework for energy legislation. Press reports indicate that your draft energy bill would fail to meet at least some of these conditions, for example by including a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a title increasing taxes, or an expansion of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;Further criticisms include the difference between the Congressional renewable fuels standard and the White House&amp;#8217;s preferred &amp;#8220;alternative fuels standard&amp;#8221;, and not excluding the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s Clean Air Act authority from &lt;span class="caps"&gt;CAFE&lt;/span&gt; regulation.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;The full letter is available &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/files/12-3_ene.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:49:00 -0600</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:a8817271-83f2-4247-a7a4-b18dbe484218</guid>
      <author>The Cunctator</author>
      <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/03/white-house-threatens-veto-of-energy-bill</link>
      <category>Legislation</category>
      <category>House energy bill</category>
      <category>HR 6</category>
      <category>HR 3221</category>
      <category>CAFE</category>
      <category>RFS</category>
      <category>RES</category>
      <category>White House</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/trackback/1693</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
