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.

‘Aggie fans-my campaign has a suite at the A&M-Arkansas game oct 3.Make a $2k contribution & come enjoy the game with me.972-875-8688

The 13-term Barton, who’s the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, won his last election with an easy 62 percent of the vote. Still, these guys can never have enough campaign cash.

But fear not, climate change deniers and oil company executives! House Republicans have just unleashed their secret weapon, sure to defeat the dangerous legislation. It comes in the form of a scintillating best-of video, capturing Republicans’ most powerful tirades against Waxman-Markey. And just in case the arguments themselves don’t bowl you over, the heroic soundtrack will.

Here it is, courtesy of Grist:

So the majority party is taking the necessary precautions: it’s hired a speed reader, just in case.

According to The Wall Street Journal, this new assistant can read a page in 34 seconds, and the entire bill would take him about nine hours.

Just another example of the ridiculous parliamentary dance putting your taxpayer dollars to good use.

The amendment, which would provide financial incentives for people to trade in their old vehicles for more fuel-efficient ones, arose from a compromise between two competing cash-for-clunkers bills, one of which was authored by Sutton and both of which contained much stronger environmental standards than the final product.

Sutton’s bill would have required the new vehicle to get at least 27 miles per gallon, while the bill favored by environmentalists would have mandated 25 percent higher fuel efficiency than the average vehicle in its class. The Sutton amendment — co-sponsored by John Dingell (D-Mich.), Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) — requires just a 4-mpg improvement over the old vehicle for passenger cars, as long as the “clunker” got no more than 18 mpg. And for large light-duty trucks, a driver is eligible for a $3,500 voucher if he or she upgrades to a vehicle that’s only 1 mpg more efficient.

The result is that people can receive $3,500 to buy a car that gets just 22 mpg — this on the same day that President Obama announced new regulations that will mandate that cars get 42 miles to the gallon by 2016.

And so in introducing her amendment, Sutton framed it in terms favoring the auto industry, rather than the environment.

“Over the last few months, auto sales have greatly suffered,” Sutton said. ” … This program has the potential to help change that.”

Another sign that the amendment lacks real environmental teeth: it’s getting broad support from the Republican side of the aisle.

Update 4:45 PM: The amendment just passed, with 50 votes in favor, 4 against and 1 present.

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here

From the Energy and Commerce Committee’s press release:

Under the agreement, consumers may trade in their old, gas-guzzling vehicles and receive vouchers worth up to $4,500 to help pay for new, more fuel efficient cars and trucks. The program will be authorized for up to one year and provide for approximately one million new car or truck purchases. The agreement divides these new cars and trucks into four categories. Miles per gallon figures below refer to EPA “window sticker” values.

· Passenger Cars: The old vehicle must get less than 18 mpg. New passenger cars with mileage of at least 22 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new car is at least 4 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new car is at least 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

· Light-Duty Trucks: The old vehicle must get less than 18 mpg. New light trucks or SUVs with mileage of at least 18 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 2 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 5 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

· Large Light-Duty Trucks: New large trucks (pick-up trucks and vans weighing between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds) with mileage of at least 15 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new truck is at least 1 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new truck is at least 2 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

· Work Trucks: Under the agreement, consumers can trade in a pre-2002 work truck (defined as a pick-up truck or cargo van weighing from 8,500-10,000 pounds) and receive a voucher worth $3,500 for a new work truck in the same or smaller weight class. There will be a finite number of these vouchers, based on this vehicle class’s market share. There are no EPA mileage measures for these trucks; however, because newer models are cleaner than older models, the age requirement ensures that the trade will improve environmental quality. Consumers can also “trade down,” receiving a $3,500 voucher for trading in an older work truck and purchasing a smaller light-duty truck weighing from 6,000 – 8,500 pounds.

Environmentalists will most likely be disappointed by this compromise, which draws on two competing bills. The weaker of the two original bills, sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) and preferred by the auto industry, required that the new vehicle get at least 27 miles per gallon, while the bill favored by environmentalists mandated that the new vehicle be at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than the average vehicle in its class.

But according to standards imposed by the Department of Transportation in March, the average efficiency for cars and light trucks in 2011 will be 27.3 mpg. This compromise bill requires that a car get just 22 mpg in order for its new owner to receive a $3,500 voucher.

The clear winner in this arrangement is the auto industry, which will likely see its sales rise as people take advantage of the new incentives. The environment, it appears, will have to content itself with a distant second place.

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.

But then I reviewed the photos I took at the hearing. Turns out Chu may have been a bit baffled after all:

The Times has caught wind of some of the details of the bill, drafted by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The legislation encompasses cap-and-trade, a national renewable electricity standard, a renewable energy standard and a low-carbon fuel standard.

On cap-and-trade, the bill sets the same goal as President Obama’s budget proposal for carbon emissions reduction by 2050: an 83 percent decrease. But the target for 2020 is more ambitious, aiming for a 20 percent cut from 2005 levels, compared with Obama’s 14 percent. Markey and Waxman also want a 42 percent reduction by 2030; Obama did not set a target for that year.

The renewable energy measure will call for utilities to get 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, by 2025, and up to one-fifth of this quota can be met with energy efficiency improvements. The bill will also require power utilities to improve their efficiency by 15 percent by 2020; for gas distributors, the requirement will be ten percent. Additionally, the legislation calls for a higher proportion of biofuels in the country’s fuel mix.

Overall, the bill sets broader and more stringent goals than Obama’s proposal, though the differences are relatively minor. Waxman and Markey’s legislation is also slightly more ambitious than a proposal outlined by the United States Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of environmental and business groups. The USCAP proposal called for a 14 to 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050, among other targets.

Waxman and Markey hope to vote the bill out of committee by June. Because it will still face debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee and eventually in conference with the Senate leadership, however, it is certain to undergo major changes — and no one really expects it to emerge in anything resembling its current, highly ambitious form.

Update: And right on cue, the bill appears on the Energy and Commerce website. Here are the full text of the draft bill (648 pages) and the much more digestible summary.

Indeed, the House Appropriations Committee yesterday tweaked the bill a bit, adding amendments requiring that projects funded by the stimulus use only U.S.-made iron and steel; providing $150 million in new funding for food banks; prohibiting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) from directing any of the funds; and forcing contractors to pay construction workers no less than prevailing local wages.

That won’t be all.

Today, both the House Ways and Means and the House Energy and Commerce panels are considering the bill. And the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is meeting as well, partly (we’re guessing) to vent frustrations about why the Democrats’ blueprint included $275 billion in tax cuts, but tens of billions less on infrastructure projects than the panel recommended last month. (Read: Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) is none too pleased.)

And this, of course, is all happening without input from Senate lawmakers, who are certain to have their own ideas about what the stimulus should prioritize. Stay tuned for more changes…