Slimy Republican Politicians and the Dirty Tricks They Play

[worldbefree]

I was asked to consolidate my threads, which is something I've always done when the articles are related. PLease see the thread titled Join the US Armay and Be All You Can Be for an example.

I think this thread title will consolidate 90% of the threads dedicated to republicans members of the Bush Administration. LOL


Waxman letter: Repubs secretly added provision into energy bill
07/27/2005 @ 6:37 pm

RAW STORY received today a letter from Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) to House Speaker Dennis Hastert today regarding a $1.5 billion provision benefiting oil and gas companies, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas, that was inserted into the energy legislation after it had been closed to further amendment. Writes Waxman:

"The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources."[1] This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment.

"Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation.

"Although the name of the subtitle refers to "ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas,"it appears that the $1.5 billion fund created by the subtitle can in fact be used for many oil and gas projects."

The text of the letter follows.
#

July 27, 2005

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6501

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am writing to draw to your attention a provision in the Energy Conference Report that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. At its essence, this provision is a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas. The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure. Before the final energy legislation is brought to the House floor, this provision should be deleted.

The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources."[1] This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment. The conferees were told that they would have the opportunity to consider and vote on the provisions in the conference report. But the subtitle was not included in the base text circulated to conferees, and it was never offered as an amendment.

Instead, the new subtitle first appeared in the text of the energy legislation only after Chairman Barton had gaveled the conference over. Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation.

On the merits, the subtitle is an indefensible giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in America. The provision establishes a $1.5 billion fund, up to $550 million of which would be dedicated direct spending, which is not subject to the normal congressional appropriations process. Although the name of the subtitle refers to "ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas," it appears that the $1.5 billion fund created by the subtitle can in fact be used for many oil and gas projects. According to the language of the subtitle, oil and gas companies can apply for funds for a wide variety of activities, including activities involving "innovative exploration and production techniques" or "enhanced recovery techniques."[2] While oil and gas companies could be required to contribute to the costs of their projects, the subtitle expressly provides that the Department has discretion to reduce or eliminate any such contribution.[3]

The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.[4] Ordinarily, a large fund like this would be administered directly by the government. The subtitle, however, directs the Department to "contract with a corporation that is constructed as a consortium."[5] The leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas.[6] Halliburton is a member of RPSEA and sits on the board, as does Marathon Oil Company.[7] The subtitle provides that the consortium can keep up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses.[8]

The subtitle further provides that members of the consortium, such as Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium.[9]

In short, the subtitle provides that taxpayers will hire a private consortium controlled by the oil and gas industry to hand out over $1 billion to oil and gas companies. There is no conceivable rationale for this extraordinary largess. The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005.[10] If Congress has an extra $1.5 billion to give away, the money should be used to help families struggling to pay for soaring gasoline prices - not to further enrich oil and gas companies that are rolling in profits.

In recent years, Congress has been repeatedly embarrassed by the mysterious insertion of provisions in omnibus legislation. Last year, for example, we learned only after House action that the 3,000 page, $388 billion omnibus spending bill allowed members and staff of the Appropriations Committee to examine the tax returns of ordinary Americans.[11] We should not allow this to happen again. The Energy Conference Report should not be brought to the House floor until this objectionable provision is deleted and there is ample opportunity for members to read the legislation and delete any other problematic provisions.

Thank you for your attention to this problem.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

http://rawstory2.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=162

[Unchainme]

I'm A Slimy Republican :D, Will this be the new lingo used by Loungemachine, Ford and NickDfreash, You never know.

[worldbefree]

No wonder oil companies are reporting record profits.

July 28, 2005
E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, July 27 - With Congress poised for a final vote on the energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy.

But a copy of the report, embargoed for publication Wednesday, was sent to The New York Times by a member of the E.P.A. communications staff just minutes before the decision was made to delay it until next week. The contents of the report show that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.

Releasing the report this week would have been inopportune for the Bush administration, its critics said, because it would have come on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation six years in the making. The bill, as it stands, largely ignores auto mileage regulations.

The executive summary of the copy of the report obtained by The Times acknowledges that "fuel economy is directly related to energy security," because consumer cars and trucks account for about 40 percent of the nation's oil consumption. But trends highlighted in the report show that carmakers are not making progress in improving fuel economy, and environmentalists say the energy bill will do little to prod them.

"Something's fishy when the Bush administration delays a report showing no improvement in fuel economy until after passage of their energy bill, which fails to improve fuel economy," said Daniel Becker, the Sierra Club's top global warming strategist. "It's disturbing that despite high gas prices, an oil war and growing concern about global warming pollution, most automakers are failing to improve fuel economy."

Eryn Witcher, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said the timing of the release of the report had nothing to do with the energy bill deliberations.

"We are committed to sharing our scientific studies with the public in the most comprehensive and understandable format possible," she said. "Issue experts are reviewing the fuel economy data and we look forward to providing a summary of the information next week."

Some of what the report says reaffirms what has long been known. Leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient, and the rise of sport utility vehicles and S.U.V.-like pickup trucks has actually sapped efficiency. The average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's, according to the report.

At the same time, while General Motors and the Ford Motor Company are the most common targets of environmental groups, the E.P.A. report shows that several foreign automakers have had the sharpest declines in recent fuel economy performance as they move aggressively into the truck market.

The average 2004 model sold by Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen was at least a half-mile a gallon less fuel-efficient than in the previous model year, a sharp drop.

"It's appalling that Nissan, V.W. and Hyundai are accelerating in reverse," Mr. Becker said.

Kyle Bazemore, a Nissan spokesman, said the company's new large pickup truck, the Titan, and new large S.U.V.'s, like the Armada, clearly affected its overall results.

"In '03, we didn't have the Titan and Armada," he said. "We've entered into new markets, but we feel we are doing it responsibly."

John Krafcik, vice president of product development and corporate strategy at Hyundai, pointed out that his company sells relatively few S.U.V.'s but has recently increased its offerings. "Car by car, we're improving fuel economy on every model in our range," he said. "That's a more appropriate way to look at it."

David Friedman, a research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, disagreed.

"The 8.5 million barrels a day that American cars and trucks use have to do with the vehicles on the road, not the model-by-model comparisons," he said. "What matters to our oil consumption is the fuel economy of the fleet on the road."

Of the eight major automakers examined in the report, only G.M., Toyota and Honda showed increases in fuel efficiency in the 2004 model year, the most recent year for which hard sales data is available. Ford had the lowest mileage of the group. Honda, which does not sell the heaviest kinds of trucks, had the best overall mileage.

Some foreign companies do not even trouble themselves to follow fuel economy regulations. BMW, in fact, has paid more than $70 million in fines since the 2000 model year for noncompliance. The company has argued that American fuel regulations, which are taken as an average over a company's entire fleet, put luxury makers at a disadvantage.

"We sell the ultimate driving machine and people expect us to offer them the kind of BMW vehicles they really want to drive," said Dave Buchko, a spokesman.

Backers of the energy bill have said it will broadly change the nation's energy policy.

Representative Joe L. Barton, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said this week that "it is a darn good bill, and it is going to help this country, and the sooner we get it done, the better."

Environmentalists disagree.

"It effectively does nothing to cut our dependence on oil," Mr. Friedman said.

While the proposed bill, as it stands, does offer limited tax credits for hybrid electric cars and advanced diesels, environmental groups object to extending mileage credits for vehicles that can be filled up with an ethanol blend instead of gasoline; many consumers who purchase such vehicles are not even aware of the feature.

The E.P.A. report illustrates what has happened as the industry has poured resources into S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks, vehicle types with less stringent fuel economy requirements than cars. The average new vehicle weight has risen to about 4,000 pounds today, from about 3,200 in the early 1980's. At the same time, the horsepower of an average engine has roughly doubled over two decades, trimming four seconds from the time it takes for the average vehicle to accelerate from zero to 60.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/business/28fuel.html?pagewanted=print

[worldbefree]

The United States has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs during Bushs tenure. How many more are we going to lose during his second term. From the looks of this it will only increase.

July 28, 2005
Republicans Are Confident on Trade Pact
BY EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, July 27 - House Republican leaders declared on Wednesday that they had lined up enough votes to secure approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or Cafta, the most significant treaty to knock down trade barriers in more than 10 years.

After one of the hardest-fought legislative battles of the year, Republican leaders were able to cut enough political deals to overcome fears among many of their own members about foreign competition and push ahead despite opposition from most Democrats, labor unions and the sugar industry's powerful lobby.

"We will pass Cafta tonight," said Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said Wednesday. "It will be a tough vote," he added, but "we will honor our commitment to our neighbors to the south. We will protect our national security, and we will do it all with very few Democrats on board."

At midnight, after balloting had begun shortly 11 p.m., the vote was 214 for and 211 against the agreement, with 9 votes still out. But House Republicans gave no indication that they would close the vote and declare victory.

Earlier in the day, President Bush, in a last-minute effort to shore up support among shaky Republicans, made a rare trip to Capitol Hill on Wednesday morning and gave a sales pitch to most of the lawmakers from his party.

Soon after the meeting broke up, Mr. DeLay announced his intention to schedule a vote on the bill late Wednesday. That was a day earlier than many lawmakers had been expecting, and it was a signal that House leaders were confident they could get the 218 votes needed. The Senate approved the trade pact late last month.

But as recently as Tuesday, fewer than half of all House Republicans had publicly endorsed the deal and all but a handful of Democrats were expected to vote against it.

If it is approved, the trade deal would eliminate most barriers to trade and investment between the United States, the Dominican Republic and the Central American nations of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

The immediate economic impact of the trade agreement is likely to be small, at least for the United States, because the combined economies of the six countries are equivalent to only about 1 percent of the United States economy.

But the political effect is likely to loom much larger. To supporters and opponents alike, the pact became a political symbol over how to respond to globalization, competition from low-wage countries and the loss of manufacturing jobs in America.

The treaty has also been the focus of a power struggle between Mr. Bush, who championed the pact as a model for expanding free trade, and Democratic lawmakers, who had been hoping to hand him a high-profile defeat and to brand him as an ally of powerful corporations with global interests at the expense of American workers.

All but a handful of Democrats, including many who voted in 1993 for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect in 1994 and covered the far bigger trading partners of Mexico and Canada, are expected to vote against the trade agreement even though most of the issues are the same.

Democrats charged that Mr. Bush has missed an opportunity to elevate labor practices in Central American nations, and that the pact would encourage American companies to shift more production outside the country to capitalize on vastly lower wages and workplace protections.

"As our manufacturing base erodes, as our industrial base erodes, we have a president who is contributing to the further erosion of that base," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader.

One crucial concession, for instance, calls for the Central American countries to use American-made pockets and linings in pants they export to the United States.

Representative Gresham Barrett, Republican of South Carolina, was one of five Republicans who abandoned his opposition to the pact this week. On Wednesday, Mr. Barrett said that he was persuaded that with the new restrictions, the deal would prevent the loss of jobs to China.

But some textile industry groups, particularly those that represent producers of finished products, were furious and vowed to punish those who had changed their views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/business/worldbusiness/28trade.html?ei=5094&en=dea7650464be316f&hp=&ex=1122609600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print