House Speaker Pelosi On John McCain's Energy Ideas

  Nancy Pelosi released a statement today, pretty much bashing John McCain's energy proposals, pretty much calling Senator McCain a flip-flopper.

“With American consumers and businesses struggling as the price at the pump cascades across our economy, Senator McCain’s proposals show he aims to continue the ‘drill and veto’ policies of the current Administration. John McCain’s energy proposal is an attempt to divert attention away from his recent flip flop and his support of the failed Bush-Cheney policies that have resulted in skyrocketing gasoline prices for consumers and skyrocketing profits for Big Oil.

“Last week, Senator McCain reversed himself and said we need to drill more. Today, he has reversed years of failing to support more efficient cars, new energy technologies and green jobs. Democrats welcome a debate on energy independence from Senator McCain, but we just don’t know which John McCain we are debating.

“Americans are suffering under the Bush-Cheney-McCain policies that were written by Big Oil: $4 a gallon gasoline; $136 per barrel oil and increased reliance on foreign sources of energy. Americans need and deserve a consistent vision for energy independence that will invest in real solutions from their next President.”

     The page on her site also list a few of McCain's missed opportunities when it has come to passing any real energy bills. Try this one below.

RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES

Sen. John McCain missed two critical energy votes on H.R. 6, The Energy Independence and Security Act, in December 2007. These votes – on December 7th and 13th – would have stopped debate and allowed a vote on an energy bill that included critical tax incentives for renewable energy sources – a bill to strengthen national security, lower energy costs, reduce global warming, grow our economy and create new jobs, and increase American energy independence. These votes were critical to making a $21 billion investment in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency, including a $3,000 tax credit to help working families afford fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. On the morning of December 13th, Sen. John McCain was the only United States Senator to not vote on this measure. The cloture vote needed sixty votes to pass. It failed, 59-40 and Senate Republicans forced the tax credits to be stripped from the larger energy bill in order to protect $13 billion in subsidies for Big Oil. [Senate Vote #416, 12/7/07; Senate Vote #425, 12/13/07]

  The New Direction Congress, as Pelosi calls it, has 4 newer proposals coming to the floor of The House this week. They are:

· Reducing Transit Fares (H.R. 6052) - Gives grants to mass transit authorities to lower fares for commuters pinched at the pump and expand transit services.

· Cracking Down on Price Gouging- Gives enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate fuel prices, similar to legislation passed last year.

· Closing the “Enron-like London Loophole” for Petroleum Markets - Takes steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, which experts have noted is driving up the price of a barrel of oil.

· “Use It Or Lose It” for Oil Companies Holding Permits and Not Drilling - Compels the oil industry to start drilling or lose permits on the 68 million acres of undeveloped federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing, keeping domestic supply lower and prices higher.

  Reducing transit fares? That may work in some places, but I doubt if it will make a big dent in our lives over-all.

    Cracking down on price gouging? Haven't we heard this one many times before? I don't see the FTC looking into anyone for to much of any thing.

    I do like the " use it or lose it " bill. Oil companies have all of this land and sea to drill in, then they should either start the damned drilling or give those permits up. Not that the drilling would help you and I much.

Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi,John McCain,oil market,FTC

Our Democrats Support Bush with FISA Bill

   I think that it is time that all of these bums in Washington,DC  be kicked to the curb, especially after pretty much granting amnesty to the telecoms for illegally spying for the Bush administration.

  Cross-posted from AlterNet

Democrats Have Legalized Bush's Crimes

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted June 21, 2008.

The Democratic leadership cleared the way for the president and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

Editor's note: You can read more about Obama backing a FISA "compromise" here.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law. Share this article

In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the "exclusive" means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one. After the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretaps two and a half years ago, Congress took no steps to hold Bush accountable. Before the 2006 elections, Pelosi declared that Bush's impeachment was "off the table."

Then, on the eve of the August 2007 recess, the Democratic-controlled Congress was stampeded into passing the "Protect America Act," which effectively legalized what Bush had already done and expanded his spying powers even more.

After that law was passed, U.S. news reports mostly parroted the White House claim that it "modernized" FISA and "narrowly" targeted overseas terror suspects who might call or e-mail their contacts in the United States.

However, it soon became clear that the law applied not just to terror suspects abroad who might communicate with Americans, but to anyone who is "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" and who might possess "foreign intelligence information," defined as anything that could be useful to U.S. foreign policy.

That meant that almost any American engaged in international commerce or dealing with foreign issues -- say, a businessman in touch with a foreign subsidiary or a U.S. reporter sending an overseas story back to his newspaper -- was vulnerable to warrantless intercepts approved on the say-so of two Bush subordinates, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

Beyond the breathtaking scope of this new authority, the Bush administration also snuck in a clause that granted forward-looking immunity from lawsuits to communications service providers that assisted the spying.

That removed one of the few safeguards against Bush's warrantless wiretaps: the concern among service providers that they might be sued by customers for handing over constitutionally protected information without a warrant.

In short, the "Protect America Act" made warrantless surveillance legally cost free for a collaborating service provider, tilting the scales even further in favor of the government's spying powers.  

Catching on

A week after the "Protect America Act" was passed, the New York Times and the Washington Post published front-page stories explaining how the Bush administration had ambushed the Democrats.

Pressed up against the start of the August recess and the prospect of Republican taunts that Democrats were "soft on terror," the Democratic leaders abandoned earlier compromise proposals and accepted the more expansive law. Their one point of resistance was putting a February 2008 sunset provision into the law.

Still, the Democratic cave-in in August 2007 provoked an uproar among rank-and-file Democrats. Pelosi's office reported receiving more than 200,000 angry e-mails.

Stung by the reaction, House Democratic leaders balked at White House pressure to make even more concessions, including retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that had collaborated with Bush's warrantless wiretaps in the years after the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2008, to the surprise of many observers, the Democratic leadership allowed the "Protect America Act" to lapse. Though Republicans attacked the Democrats as expected, the accusations seemed to have little political resonance.

Nevertheless, the Democratic leadership -- behind Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland -- continued working on a compromise.

While the new version drops some of the more intrusive features of the "Protect America Act," such as allowing warrantless wiretaps of Americans outside the United States, the bill adds retroactive telecom immunity (only requiring the companies show they got a written order from the President).

The bill also would grant the administration emergency power to wiretap a target for up to one week before getting a warrant from the secret FISA court. But the bill bars the government from targeting a foreigner as a "back-door" way to spy on an American without a court warrant.

'Capitulation'

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, a strong constitutionalist, termed the new bill "not a compromise; it is a capitulation."

One of the bill's illusions would seem to be that the precedent of a President ignoring the FISA law and escaping any accountability can somehow be negated by restating what the original, violated law had declared.

In her June 20 floor statement, Pelosi said in her view this was a crucial feature of the bill, the statement that the President cannot ignore the FISA law again. However, Pelosi's position sounded like the words of an indulgent parent of a spoiled child: "This time I really mean it!"

The more powerful message from the latest Democratic compromise is that a President -- at least a Republican one -- can break the wiretap law under the cover of national security and expect to ride out the consequences.

Rather than reaffirming the rule of law and the Constitution's checks and balances, as Pelosi claimed, the new FISA "compromise" may have done the opposite, signaling that the President is above the law.

After Pelosi's speech, the House passed the bill by a 293-129 margin with 105 Democrats -- including most of the leadership -- voting in favor and 128 Democrats against. The bill then went to the Senate, which was expected to approve it.

Technorati Tags: FISA,Protect America Act,Congress,Senate,telecom amnesty,Nancy Pelosi,George Bush,illegal wiretaps,Russ Feingold