First, Rep. John Shadegg of Phoenix has was on the floor of the House pushing a bill that he introduced, HR2730, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act.
It allows the Department of Energy to invest $20 million per year for 7 years in joint US/Israeli research into alternative (read: non-oil) energy sources. It applies to both private business and academic projects. One of the big selling points of the bill is that it contains a provision for 'recoupment', aka repayment.
During the debate, many Congressfolk cited the rising cost of energy, the commonality of interests with Israel in this area, as Israel imports much of its own energy needs, and how both countries need to curb their dependence on foreign oil.
Rep. Shadegg cited an already existing example of cooperation where an Israeli scientist is working with an AZ company on getting energy from a fast-growing algae.
Personal observation: The cynic in me thinks that this may be the most important part of the debate. I'd like to know what company that is, and what kind of campaign contributions it has made. This may not be a bad bill, per se, but it reeks of pork.
Personal observation 2: The bill also looks like a statement of support for and solidarity with Israel. This may annoy some of the readers of this blog, but I don't have a problem with that. At all.
AZ co-sponsors of the bill: Renzi, Grijalva, Pastor, Franks.
No other AZ congressmen were involved with the House debate.
The bill passed via voice vote.
Next, Congressman Shadegg brought HR5611, Fuel Consumption Education Act, to the floor. He is not a sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill, and I don't know enough about House procedures to know why he is the one who brought it to the floor and led the debate.
The bill creates a partnership between the government (in the form of the Secretary of Energy) and industry groups to create an advertising campaign teaching consumers of the measures that they can take to conserve fuel in their cars. It authorizes $10 million to achieve this end.
House members from both sides of the aisle stood to express support for the bill.
The debate was essentially very boring, except for two things:
1. Rep. Shadegg cited the rolling blackouts in California in 2000, and the education campaign to reduced power demand that was used then.
I was a little surprised that the CA energy crisis/fraud initiated by Enron would be cited to support anything having to do with proper energy resource management.
2. Also interesting in the atmosphere of bipartisan backslapping over this bill was Congressman Ed Markey's (D-MA) criticism of the bill. He noted that the Energy Department already provides all of the conservation info that would be covered in the campaign. He said that the Republicans' "Energy Week" should be renamed "Energy Weak".
My take: He's right. The bill in itself is not "bad", just woefully inadequate and wastefully redundant.
The bill passed via voice vote.
The bills were fast-tracked to the floor under suspension of the rules, and, well, they really look like bills that were passed so the sponsors could campaign on the bills, not because they will make good laws.
Later!
No comments:
Post a Comment