WP: Key Measures Move Forward In Congress

[Ignatius J.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901942.html

Key Measures Move Forward In Congress

Transit Bill Passes; Gun Policy Advances

By Charles Babington and Justin Blum

Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, July 30, 2005; A01

After years of partisan impasses and legislative failures, Congress in a matter of hours yesterday passed or advanced three far-reaching bills that will allocate billions of dollars and set new policies for guns, roads and energy.

The measures sent to President Bush for his signature will grant $14.5 billion in tax breaks for energy-related matters and devote $286 billion to transportation programs, including 6,000 local projects, often called pork barrel. The Senate also passed a bill to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from various lawsuits. The House is poised to pass it this fall.

Combined with the Central American Free Trade Agreement that Congress approved Thursday, the measures constitute significant victories for Bush and GOP congressional leaders, who have been frustrated by Democrats in some areas such as Social Security. As senators cast vote after vote in order to start their August recess today, Bush applauded Congress, saying the energy bill "will help secure our energy future and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy."

Capping a long day of debates and roll calls, the Senate scheduled hearings for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. to begin Sept. 6, and voted to reauthorize portions of the USA Patriot Act, granting sweeping new powers to authorities to combat terrorism, although the chamber remains at odds with the House.

The bills approved this week won varying degrees of support from Democrats, with most of them opposing the trade pact and gun bill. The energy bill passed the Senate 74 to 26, but Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) denounced it as a missed opportunity to lower gasoline prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Even some senior Republicans said the transportation and energy bills passed largely because House and Senate leaders loaded them with pork-barrel projects and jettisoned contentious measures coveted by conservatives, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Congress will consider the drilling proposal separately later this year.

"Finally, by pure exhaustion, we're going to stagger across the finish line, emaciated and without much to brag about," Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said in an interview. "The only way we got the energy bill was to pick a lot of the meat out of it. This is not a particularly impressive bill."

The House and Senate have engaged in pre-vacation voting marathons before, but few have involved so much major legislation that had been bottled up for so long. Lawmakers have wrangled over the energy bill for more than four years, only to see it sink under the weight of competing priorities and regional differences. Gun advocacy groups have pushed for the liability-protection bill for four years.

Even the massive transportation bill -- usually a bipartisan favorite because it delivers jobs, bridges and mass-transit aid to so many districts -- failed to jell for two years, mainly because of quarrels over state funding distributions. The House and Senate passed it yesterday by overwhelming margins.

Lawmakers cited several factors for the breakthrough in the long-awaited bills, including high gasoline prices and a greater GOP willingness to include Democrats in early drafting, especially for the energy bill. But some attributed it mainly to Bush's reelection and the Republicans' continued control of both legislative chambers, giving Democrats little choice but to join GOP efforts or have no say in how bills are shaped.

"They just have great cards," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said. "They've got all three branches of government. They've got the bully pulpit."

Yesterday's action also included Senate approval, 99 to 1, of $1.5 billion in additional spending for veterans' health care programs. The House approved the spending Thursday.

Many lawmakers viewed the energy bill -- approved by the House on Thursday and by the Senate yesterday -- as the week's crowning achievement. It provides tax breaks and other incentives to encourage new nuclear plants, cleaner-burning coal facilities and production of more oil and natural gas. It also offers incentives to produce energy from wind and other renewable sources and to make homes and office buildings more efficient. The bill allows for enforceable rules governing the electrical grid's operation and provides tax benefits for investment in transmission lines -- efforts to improve the grid's reliability.

Virginia's two senators and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) voted for the bill. Six Republicans, one independent and 19 Democrats -- including Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (Md.) -- voted against it.

Since his first State of the Union address in 2001, Bush has been calling for an energy policy, and he appointed Vice President Cheney to lead a task force to make recommendations. Since then, Bush has pressed Congress to enact a policy that would lower energy prices for consumers and businesses, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In the past year, oil prices have soared to record levels, pushing gasoline prices well above $2 a gallon. Prices for natural gas also have increased, leading to higher bills for consumers.

Analysts from across the political spectrum said the bill does little to reduce U.S. oil imports, lower prices or deal with other energy issues facing country. They said the $14.5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives will do little more than send money to energy companies, some of which already are reaping huge profits.

"This bill will allow politicians to tell voters they're, quote, doing something about high energy prices," said Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies for the Cato Institute, which advocates free-market policies. "And the bill also allows politicians to hand out subsidies and preferences and tax dollars to well-organized interest groups -- and that's what Congress likes to do best."

But many lawmakers said the bill will encourage the creation of fuels and electrical generating plants that emit less greenhouse gases, which have been linked to global warming. They said the efficiency provisions would also lead to lower emissions than would otherwise occur.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said that years from now, the country will be better off because of the legislation. "I can tell you, we will be safer," Domenici said. "We will have more jobs. We will have an electric system that is safe and sound. We will have diversity of energy sources and supplies built in our country for us, spending our money, creating our jobs and many more things."

The transportation bill was approved 412 to 8 by the House, and 91 to 4 by the Senate. The bill's spending is retroactive to 2004 and runs through 2009. The Virginia and Maryland senators and representatives voted for the bill. About $52 million of the $286.5 billion will go to mass transit. The bill will send extra funds to states that enforce tough seat belt laws, and it devotes money to combating fuel tax evasion.

Bush once had threatened to veto the bill because it spends more than he had wanted, but yesterday he promised to sign it. "I congratulate the Congress for completing a highway bill that will improve highway safety, modernize our roads, reduce traffic congestion and create jobs," he said. "I am pleased that Congress met these objectives in a fiscally responsible way and without raising gas taxes."

Four Senate Republicans voted against the bill, including John McCain (Ariz.), who decried the thousands of special projects for targeted districts. "I wonder what it's going take to make the case for fiscal sanity here?" he asked his colleagues.

The firearms bill passed the Senate 65 to 31, with 29 Democrats opposing it. Maryland's senators voted against the bill, Virginia's senators voted for it.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

**********************************************

I suppose there really is no problem that more spending can't fix. Out of the three big bills, I suppose most can get in line with the idea that a gun manufacturer isn't liable. But the rest of this stuff?

This energy bill makes me smile. At least liberals want to give tax breaks to people who aren't making record profits as they head towards early retirement. Heading into midterm elections, you just know that republicans around the country are going to claim that they were a part of ending the hegimony of foreign oil with this bill, when in fact they passed a toothless piece of legislation by the skin of thier teeth through copious grants of pork barell spending. I wonder if it's a coincidence that the transportation billl got passed at almost exactly the same time.

doesn't bush's borrow and spend policy making worry anyone else? At least liberals have the balls to give you a paycheck stub telling you just how much they stole from you.

I seem to also remember bush making a big deal earlier this year about actually doing something about the deficit.... we all got a big laugh out of that.

[dreamingwolf]

republicans bad, democrats good

[Ignatius J.]

On some issues dreamingwolf. If you think these spending bills would have been passed with kerry at the helm though, you're dreaming, wolf.

anyway, do you want to comment on what your boys are doing with our money, or is this all just cool for you?

[DjTj]

You know, pork is a problem, but when it comes down to it, I would really like to see the Intercounty Connector built, and it would be really nice if they fixed some potholes around here...

I don't see a really easy legal fix to the problem either, except perhaps reining in the Commerce Clause, and the Washington Post is adamantly against that. It always seems like the Post is super-critical of pork, but won't stand up for any real reforms that will stop it.

I actually think the true source of pork is the increasing power of corporate lobbyists, who are only more influential in a Republican administration (whereas unions, environmental groups, et al are closer to Democrats). To reign in the pork we need to rein in the lobbyists.

What I would hope to see is a McCain-Feingold for lobbyists. Dean and Edwards had proposals like that in their platforms, but it didn't make Kerry's list of talking points. McCain of course supports this kind of reform, but he also doesn't fare well in the primaries...

I actually wouldn't be quite as resrtictive as the proposals on the table. I think we just need very strict reporting requirements. Elected officials should have to report every lobbyist they meet with and what bills were discussed. The campaign contributions of lobbyists should also be reported clearly. There should also be more publicity notifying us of lobbyists that are appointed to government positions and elected officials that are hired by lobbying firms ... the Post actually did a recent article on that.

Pork is something that is endemic to a democratic system, and hopefully people are learning that it is not attributable to a particular party. It's not going to go away unless people start caring about it, and that won't happen until we know about it.

[luckydevil]

What I would hope to see is a McCain-Feingold for lobbyists.

Because as we all know McCain-Feingold has been a smashing success. Oh, wait

Never mind that whole first amendment thing

[Ignatius J.]

DjTj,

you make some good points but I think you lose some of the most importnat things you are saying by couching it in the language of mcain-feingold.

luckydevil's crticism doesn't seem to fit with your actual statements because you brought up something that sounds like a bad idea.

You mention transparency, which has nothing to do with violating first amendment (in a way mcain feingold does). I actually agree with what you said about transparency. people should be forced to document the discussions held with lobbiests. If they know what was discussed and what was spent then voters remain in power. If this information is kept hidden then voters are stripped of thier real power which relies on accurate information.

Trouble is, at parts you made it sound like you supported a ban on lobbyists, which I think DOES have problems with certain ideals of freedom. were you actually proposing legislation to directly limit the influence the power and exposure granted to lobbyists, or were you simply reccomending full transparency? the latter seems a much cleaner way to get the desired result, free from luckydevil's concerns.

[dreamingwolf]

If you're blue and

you don't know

where to go to

why don't you go

where fashion sits

muhoarrrrahaaaaa

republican bad, democrat good

I find it cute that you think Kerry would have been different, you are so adorable. goo goo goo goo, thats my little man.

[luckydevil]

I find it cute that you think Kerry would have been different, you are so adorable. goo goo goo goo, thats my little man.

Congress would have been different.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

DjTj,

you make some good points but I think you lose some of the most importnat things you are saying by couching it in the language of mcain-feingold.

luckydevil's crticism doesn't seem to fit with your actual statements because you brought up something that sounds like a bad idea.

You mention transparency, which has nothing to do with violating first amendment (in a way mcain feingold does). I actually agree with what you said about transparency. people should be forced to document the discussions held with lobbiests. If they know what was discussed and what was spent then voters remain in power. If this information is kept hidden then voters are stripped of thier real power which relies on accurate information.

Trouble is, at parts you made it sound like you supported a ban on lobbyists, which I think DOES have problems with certain ideals of freedom. were you actually proposing legislation to directly limit the influence the power and exposure granted to lobbyists, or were you simply reccomending full transparency? the latter seems a much cleaner way to get the desired result, free from luckydevil's concerns.

I would like full transparency, and in my mind, that's also the real benefit of McCain-Feingold. We can look up who the big donors are, and our political ads have to say who is sponsoring them. That is the real difference between our campaign finance today and that of the past, and it's definitely a step in the right direction.

I think it would be nice to limit lobbyists somewhat, but I think there are no good legislative solutions there - the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits in almost any proposal I can come up with. Transparency is the first and most important step to at least identifying the problem. Then, we can rely on the voters to limit the lobbyists - if there were political repurcussions to being too cozy with lobbyists, their power would wane.