<?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: Boehner Calls for Debate on Markey Climate Legislation</title>
    <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/06/05/boehner-calls-for-debate-on-markey-climate-legislation</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>Science Policy Legislation Action</description>
    <item>
      <title>Boehner Calls for Debate on Markey Climate Legislation</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, House minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent a letter attacking the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036) and Rep. Ed Markey&amp;#8217;s Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (&lt;a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06186:"&gt;H.R. 6186&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;blockquote&gt;I write to you today regarding Select Committee on Energy Independence Chairman Ed Markey&#8217;s (D-MA) introduction of his long-awaited legislation aimed at reducing the level of carbon in the air by imposing new taxes on emitting it.  Based on his comments last week, Chairman Markey&#8217;s legislation is expected to be much more far-reaching &#8211; and much more costly &#8211; than the legislation the Senate is debating this week.  Make no mistake: House Republicans support responsible climate change policies that will protect our environment, advance our energy security, and create more American jobs.  But in both cases, Chairman Markey&#8217;s bill and the Senate bill amount to large tax increases that would impact virtually the entire economy and would saddle consumers with even higher energy costs.  I believe this approach is not only inadvisable; it is reckless and inappropriate . . .

	&lt;p&gt;While I disagree fervently with the logic of raising energy costs while consumers already face astronomical prices for gasoline, I respect your prerogative as Speaker to follow through on your promise and schedule a vote on the bill.  And frankly, I welcome the debate.  At a time when families are reconsidering their summer travel plans because of the record-high gas prices, I believe there is no clearer distinction between the two parties in Congress than on this issue.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


The Hill &lt;a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-dares-pelosi-to-act-on-rep.-markey-climate-bill-2008-06-04.html"&gt;reports&lt;/a&gt; that Pelosi&amp;#8217;s office responded:
&lt;blockquote&gt;&amp;#8220;The Energy and Commerce Committee and its members are taking the lead in developing climate change legislation in the House,&amp;#8221; said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. &amp;#8220;This is an extremely complicated issue, and we will continue to move forward as quickly as possible, regardless of the outcome of the current Senate debate.&amp;#8221; 

	&lt;p&gt;He added, &amp;#8220;We welcome Republican involvement on the climate change issue &amp;#8230; As the climate crisis is an issue of global importance, everyone needs to be involved in finding bipartisan solutions.&amp;#8221; &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:14:00 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:d6dc3154-70aa-4707-8aa9-2a4462499b6e</guid>
      <author>Wonk Room</author>
      <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/06/05/boehner-calls-for-debate-on-markey-climate-legislation</link>
      <category>Legislation</category>
      <category>Lieberman-Warner</category>
      <category>cap and trade</category>
      <category>S 3036</category>
      <category>HR 6186</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/trackback/2182</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
