The letter was sent by committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and subcommittee chairmen Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)

According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is conducting an investigation into the Gulf oil spill, BP spent more than $93 million on advertising from April to July 2010.

According to a Sept. 1 letter from Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who are leading the oil spill investigation:

BP’s increased spending was almost entirely targeted at national and local newspapers and magazines and national and local television advertising. A small portion of the increased spending was targeted at Internet advertising. With respect to television and radio spots, BP indicated that it aired fewer spots during the April-July 2010 time period than during the April-July 2009 time period, but a higher percentage were national and longer, 60-second spots.

BP also expanded the markets in which it ran advertisements from two states and Washington, D.C., to 17 states, the letter says.

Expect Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the chairman of the subcommittee, and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the full committee chairman, to go after officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency over the report released last week that said much of the oil in the Gulf has been dispersed or cleaned up. The University of Georgia released yesterday a report countering those claims, arguing that up to 79 percent of the oil in the Gulf “remains a threat to the ecosystem” there.

At the same time, the committee has invited an official from the Food and Drug Administration, as well as representatives from the seafood industry to talk seafood safety. While Louisiana opened up its waters to shrimping this week, the Washington Post noted yesterday that fishermen are concerned that any discovery of tainted seafood could severely hobble the industry.

Here’s the full list of witnesses.

Yesterday, at a House hearing to examine how the task force arrived at their decisions, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) had heard enough. The 28-term veteran, who has introduced a single-payer health reform bill in every Congress since he arrived in Washington, went on an offensive of his own.

“These are the kind of scare tactics that I have heard from that side of the aisle, and always with great personal offense,” Dingell said.

They talked about how we’re going to to pull the plug on grandma; how we’re going to push euthanasia forward; how we’re going to deny health care to deserving people because of this legislation.

These recommendations … are recommendations — nothing more. And to say anything different than that is either to transmit the grossest kind of carelessness or …  just plain outright deceit.

It is time for us to look at these recommendations as they are: The recommendation of a scientific panel created to make advice on what is the best medical practice.

For any Republicans who want help interpreting the bill, Dingell added, “I will be happy to volunteer time so that they come to have a better understanding of what the bill does.”

In a letter yesterday to GAO, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) voiced concerns that the companies are “artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms that could otherwise reduce prescription drug prices or price growth by encouraging patients and the government to be more efficient purchasers.”

Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive. We request that the GAO prepare on an expedited basis a report that analyzes recent trends in prescription drug pricing. In addition, we request that you prepare a proposal to ensure ongoing monitoring of pharmaceutical manufacturer pricing practices, and periodically report to the Congress on your findings.

Not that the pharmaceutical industry is taking the Times’ report sitting down. In a statement released Monday, Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the price increases represent “the natural result of market forces.”

Among the most vocal opponents of the initial draft was Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who represents the entirety of coal-rich Southwestern Virginia. Boucher hinged his vote for the environmental bill on the addition of tens of billions of dollars in pollution-permit giveaways to the coal industry and the utility companies that rely on it — concessions that worked their way into the final bill.

Today, we learn anew how the laws of reciprocity work in Washington.

In the months surrounding the climate change negotiations, the political committees for the largest energy and manufacturing interests — including the mining, gas and electric industries — showered Boucher with more than $51,000 in campaign cash, according to second-quarter disclosure forms posted today by the Federal Election Commission.

Donors included local Virginia interests, like Richmond-based energy giant Dominion ($2,500), but also a long list of out-of-state companies who have no interest in being held financially liable for the emissions they spew. Among them are Tennessee-based Eastman Chemical ($2,500), California’s Occidental Petroleum Corporation ($2,500) and New Jersey-based NRG Energy ($1,000). The list goes on — and this doesn’t include the executives and other employees of these companies who donated to Boucher on their own. (More on that later).

For the year, Boucher’s take from energy interests is roughly $110,000, the FEC forms reveal. Not bad for a guy who won his last reelection bid with 97 percent of the vote.

Tuesday’s hearing, the first day at which amendments to the bill were presented, extended late into the night, but just six amendments were put to a vote, and Chairman Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) goal of voting on the bill today appeared to be in serious danger. Yet just now, Ranking Member Joe Barton (D-Texas), who had pledged to wreak havoc on the proceedings, said that the Republicans were planning just ten more amendments. The committee now hopes to wrap things up by around 7 p.m. tonight.

What led to the Republican change of heart? Republicans may be disheartened by the fairly unified Democratic front thus far — the moderates they were hoping to pick off on some votes have largely toed the party line as Republican amendment after Republican amendment has been rejected. Or maybe they simply can’t bear the thought of another week of long hearings, when a sense of inevitability surrounding the bill’s passage (in the House, at least) has set in.

Last night, the Republicans forfeited another card they had up their sleeves by agreeing not to force a reading of the 946-page bill. But Barton didn’t want Douglas Wilder, the speed reader the Democrats hired as a precaution to go to waste.

“I may force the reading of a five-page amendment just to hear that young man read,” Barton said.

Waxman responded that he thought the Democratic leadership had let the reader go after the Republican pledge last night not to force a reading. But it was soon discovered that he was present, and Barton requested a reading of an amendment he had just introduced.

And so Wilder set to work, churning out the bureaucratic language atop the amendment at an impressive clip. After about 20 seconds of reading, Barton cut him off and withdrew his request for a reading. Wilder drew a big round of applause from everyone present.

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.

House lawmakers took a step today to change that, passing legislation placing tobacco products under the regulatory eye of the FDA. But as evidence of just how slowly Washington works (and how powerful industries can be), the fate of the bill is uncertain in the Senate, where some regional protectionists have vowed to kill it.

The New York Times describes the bill:

As passed by the House the legislation would set up a new F.D.A. office, financed by industry fees, with powers to restrict harmful chemicals in existing tobacco products — including nicotine and possibly, after further study, menthol. The F.D.A. would also be empowered to approve or reject new tobacco products and to expand marketing restrictions and warning labels.

Among the changes, the bill would prohibit tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and require companies to disclose the ingredients of their products. The FDA would not have the power to eliminate tobacco products outright.

A decade ago, the FDA tried to regulate tobacco, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that Congress must specifically empower the agency to monitor the industry. Bill sponsor Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who now heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been trying to do just that for years.

He’s almost there. President Obama supports the bill. The only potential deal-killer could come in the Senate, where North Carolina GOP Sen. Richard Burr has vowed a filibuster, The Times reports.

Is it 2009 or 1709? How the Senate votes will give us the answer.

He opened his statement at a congressional hearing yesterday as follows: “Today’s hearing is about adaptation. Adapting is a common natural way for people to adapt to their environment.”

Can’t argue with that. More questionable is his assessment of global warming in the same hearing:

“I think that it’s inevitable that humanity will adapt to global warming. I also believe the longer we postpone finding ways to do it successfully, the more expensive and unpalatable the adjustment will become. Adaptation to shifts in temperature is not that difficult. What will be difficult is the adaptation to rampant unemployment — enormous, spontaneous and avoidable changes to our economy — if we adopt such a reckless policy as cap-and-tax or cap-and-trade.”

If that seems dubious to you, here’s his solid evidence that adaptation has worked in the past: “During the Little Ice Age, both the Vikings and the British adapted to the cold by changing. I suppose that one possible adaptation response of Viking retrenchment and British expansion is that we’re conducting the hearing today in English instead of Norwegian.”

Irrefutable logic. Remember, this guy used to be chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The future of our planet was basically in his hands.

But I can’t do him justice. Watch the full clip below:

–

We’re speechless. Please follow TWI on Twitter here.

It was no mystery that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) was intent on making environment-friendly changes when he swept the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee from beneath auto-friendly Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in November. And this week, that house-cleaning began in earnest.

In a reshuffling that will remove several Dingell allies from key environmentally sensitive posts, Waxman melded two E&C subcommittees — the Energy & Air Quality panel and the Environment & Hazardous Materials panel — to form the Energy and Environment subcommittee, of which Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) will be the chairman, the Boston Globe reported today.

Markey, who also heads the House committee on energy independence and global warming, has long been among the most fervent congressional environmentalists, pushing for increased fuel efficiency standards and protection of the Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, among a long list of pet causes.

Displaced in Waxman’s reorganization will be Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat who has long protected the interests of Big Coal. Boucher, who heads the soon-to-be-disbanded Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, will instead take control of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, a post currently held by Markey. Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.), another Dingell ally who now heads the soon-to-be-extinct Environment & Hazardous Materials panel, is apparently out of a chairmanship.

Grist writer David Roberts has a nice wrap-up today of the implications of all this reshuffling:

This gives Markey a one-two punch: he can craft and help pass climate/energy legislation through the Subcommittee while using the Select Committee to educate other committee chairs about how the issue affects their jurisdictions. I can’t think of another committee chair who has the same kind of megaphone with which to drum up support for his own legislation, in the House and among the public.

With this move, Pelosi’s House further cements itself as the likely force for boldness on climate/energy issues in coming years. The Speaker is by all accounts a sincere and committed greenie. She has Waxman at the helm of the relevant committee. She has Markey running the relevant subcommittee and doing education/advocacy. Dingell and his allies — the go-slow lobby — have been cleared away. All systems are go.