The House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee has no real legislative authority, but it’s a bully pulpit for its chairman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). On Tuesday, Markey will have seated in the pews five top oil industry executives, testifying at a hearing, “Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the Pursuit of Alternatives.” (Markey’s news release.)

No one will be surprised at the tenor of the questioning.

From DowJones:

Federal lawmakers are sustaining their ongoing attack on Big Oil. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is on Tuesday expected to lambast oil executives for high oil prices at a panel hearing.

“This gas price record is a perfect example of why we need these oil companies to go on the record with the American people to discuss our dangerous dependence on oil,” Markey ahead of his hearing. “These companies are defending billions in federal subsidies needed for renewable fuels and clean energy while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone.”

We have every confidence in the executives’ ability to defend the oil industry if given a fair opportunity to respond to questions. One question we’d like fully addressed: How will increasing taxes on energy production by $18 billion encourage further domestic exploration and development?

Oh, and here’s another: How will increasing energy taxes improve prices at the pump?

But perhaps those are best directed at Chairman Markey.

The five executives scheduled to testify:

Mr. J. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corp.
Mr. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company
Mr. Robert A. Malone, Chairman and President, BP America, Inc.
Mr. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman, Chevron
Mr. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, ConocoPhillips

With all the attention paid to litigation-encouraging attorney general provisions in the Consumer Product Reform Act’s passage in the Senate (S. 2663, but now H.R.4040) we neglected to note Sen. Diane Feinstein’s successful amendment to ban children’s toys and products containing phthalates. That’s the class of chemical used to make plastic soft and malleable, with many applications in consumer products.

The health and scientific bases for banning the phthalates are lacking, although that hasn’t stopped the Europeans, as William Duncan of the Kansas City Life Sciences Institute explains in this Washington Times column, “Political science.” In fact, the EU ban on phthalates occurred before the required scientific study was completed, which just happened to find the substance safe. Political science indeed.

Duncan also asks the very good question: What potentially even more dangerous chemicals will replace the phthalates?

Feinstein’s federal ban was inspired by legislation in California, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law last October. For the children. As American Chemical Council President Jack Gerard protested, “This law is the product of the politics of fear. It is not good science, and it is not good government. Thorough scientific reviews in this country and in Europe have found these toys safe for children to use. California businesses will now be obliged to take products off the shelves that their customers need and want.”

Yes, and as Feinstein’s amendment shows, policy blunders and blandishments that start in California often spread. Which brings us to the latest from the sponsor of the original state ban…

From the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, March 28: “Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) has introduced SB 1713 which would prohibit numerous toys and childcare articles that contain detectable levels of bisphenol-A. This expands the current prohibition on the use of phthalates to include an array of products where exposure is almost undetectable or non-existent.”

UPDATE (Wednesday, 2:40 p.m.): Sen. Migden appears to be embattled, beleagued, controversial.

From the President’s remarks before his departure for Europe:

Congress needs to pass FISA reform. Our intelligence professionals are waiting on the Congress to give them the tools they need to monitor terrorist communications. Congress also needs to provide liability protection to companies that may have helped save lives after September the 11th, 2001.

Also, Washington Times editorial, “Blue Dog betrayal.” And the reliably liberal editorialists at The Los Angeles Times propose a grand compromise on immunity in “Congress’ first task: FISA”:

Civil lawsuits are not the only or the best way to ventilate information about the program, about which Congress already knows much more than it did a few years ago. A better option is proposed in the new House bill: a congressional commission to investigate the genesis of the secret NSA program. A House-Senate compromise that included both immunity and a commission would be hard for Bush to veto. More important, it would put what began as a lawless program on a sound legal footing.

We’d take the Times more seriously if it wasn’t so dismissive about the importance of telecom immunity, which it describes as a side issue. We suggest that encouraging the involvement of the private sector and America’s citizens in opposing murderous terrorists is rather central.

His speech proposing lots and lots of financial regulatory changes is available here. Among the recommendations is merging the SEC and the OTC, but this proposal about authority for the Federal Reserve is likely to draw the most attention:

Market Stability Regulator

The Federal Reserve would have the responsibility and authority to gather appropriate information, disclose information, collaborate with the other regulators on rule writing, and take corrective actions when necessary to ensure overall financial market stability. To fulfill its responsibilities to gather information, the Fed would have authority to join in examinations with the prudential and business conduct regulators.

This new role will replace the Fed’s more limited, traditional role as the supervisor of financial holding companies, bank holding companies, and certain state-chartered banks.

The Fed would have the ability to monitor risks across the financial system.

That’s from the Treasury Fact Sheet on the proposal.

The report is “Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure.” You can download it here.

And the news release.

A spate of publicity came Raelyn Campbell’s way in February with the reporting on her $54 million lawsuit against Best Buy for losing her computer. She appears to have a legitimate complaint, and her arguments about data theft have merit.

Nevertheless, the amount sought — the same figure that Judge Roy Pearson sued his drycleaners for upon the loss of his pants — is outrageous, seemingly designed just to elicit the coverage Campbell desired. She even started a much-publicized blog on her crusade.

Funny thing is, that blog hasn’t been updated since February 15th. Did the suit get settled? Did it serve her publicity goals and get dropped? Because no matter what, that $54 million claim remains outrageous.

This goes a long way in explaining why California Attorney General Jerry Brown has turned himself into the litigation-happy Environmental Minister at Large for the state.

SAN JOSE – State Attorney General Jerry Brown waxed nostalgic about his former days as governor on Saturday and strongly suggested that he might run again – just as soon as he is done suing President Bush over global warming.

In a speech to more than 1,000 activists at a state Democratic Party convention, Brown, 69, hyped his current legal battle to uphold California’s global warming fight and enforce tough auto emissions standards. “I’ve had to sue Bush about five times,” he said, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “is blocking the will of the people of California.”

He stirred speculation of another gubernatorial run when he closed his speech by saying: “I don’t do too much these days except sue people. But someday maybe I’ll get around to doing more than that and hopefully you’ll help.”

The old joke around political circles is that AG stands for “Aspiring Governor.” We can add “Activist Guru” in Brown’s case, if only for the historic resonance.

P.S. Take a look the Global Warming section of the AG office’s state webpage. Brown’s insertion into a policy area that rightfully belongs to the U.S. Congress is breathtaking.

The Washington Post’s Opinion Page today offers more of its solid argumentation in support of passing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. From “Free Colombia“:

The agreement is being held hostage by members of the House (and Senate) who argue that Colombia — despite a dramatic drop in its overall murder toll under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe — hasn’t done enough to protect trade union activists or to punish past murders of labor leaders. It’s a spurious complaint: Actually, in 2006, union members were slightly less likely than the average Colombian to be murdered. But the human rights issue has served as cover for many Democrats whose true objections are to free trade itself.

Once the agreement arrives on the Hill, Congress will have 90 legislative days to vote yes or no — no amendments and no filibusters allowed, because special “fast track” rules apply. The Bush administration is betting that enough Democrats would support the pact to ensure its passage in the House, if it ever comes up for a vote. Of course, Ms. Pelosi could make an issue of the president’s failure to get her approval to submit the pact and then could have her caucus shoot down the deal. But she could also engage the White House in serious negotiations. The president has signaled a willingness to consider reauthorizing aid for workers displaced by trade, legislation that is dear to the Democrats’ labor constituency and that he has heretofore resisted.

Ms. Pelosi recently said that no Colombia deal could pass without trade adjustment assistance — without also mentioning the bogus trade unionists issue. Perhaps she is realizing that talking to Mr. Bush about swapping a Colombia vote for trade adjustment assistance might actually lead to a tangible accomplishment. At least we have to hope so.

Before leaving for Ukraine this morning, President Bush briefly spoke from the South Lawn, urging Congress to act on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The Post’s scenario appears to one way to achieve that goal to the satisfaction of both House leadership and the White House.

Last Friday the National Association of Manufacturers joined the Society for Human Resource Management and the International Franchise Association (IFA) in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case, Golden Gate Restaurant v. San Francisco. The suit involves San Francisco’s law, “The Health Care Security Ordinance,” that requires companies doing business in the city to provide employee health insurance or pay into a city fund for the uninsured.

This is an obvious violation of ERISA, the 1970s’ era law through which federal employment-benefits law supersedes state and local laws. In their drive for universal health care, San Francisco and other mandate-happy localities would create an even more expensive, unsustainable system, featuring potentially thousands of different local laws on health-care coverage.

In December, a federal court ruled the city had violated ERISA, but the usual suspects at the 9th Circuit suspended the district court’s ruling and allowed the ordinance to go into effect in January 2008.

“Congress understood that without a dependable set of national rules on employee benefits, businesses will find it too complicated and expensive to work across state lines,” said Quentin Riegel, NAM’s director of litigation. “That’s why ERISA has always superseded state and local laws like San Francisco’s.”

Representing the three trade associations is the law firm of Ogletree Deakins, with Tom Christina as lead attorney. The amicus brief is available at the NAM’s website, here, and the IFA issued its own news release.

The National Federation of Independent Business is also alarmed, given the imposition of yet another mandate on the small employers they represent. From the NFIB news release:

“This ordinance is extremely unfair to small employers, the real job creators in California and across the country,” said John Kabateck, NFIB/California executive director. “If this ordinance is upheld, small employers will be forced to make difficult decisions about whether to lay off staff, increase prices on consumers or if possible, move their business out of San Francisco. Hurting small employers in this manner is simply unacceptable and should not be permitted by our state or local laws.”

The online trade publication, Occupational Health and Safety, covered recent developments in this article.

UPDATE (9:15 a.m.) Washingotn Post small-business reporter/blogger Sharon McLoone has more on the legal developments in her column today.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez comes to the NAM on Friday to discuss the latest employment figures (most likely job losses) being released that day by the Department of Labor. Expect a heavy week of economic discussions, as Treasury Secretary Paulson speaks on the financial markets today, unveiling a major regulatory restructuring plan, and Senate Banking holds a
high-profile hearing Thursday on turmoil. Turmoil is preferable to panic, right?

Otherwise…Congress is back, the President is a roamin’, and the Pennsylvania primary is still weeks away. For conflict of a more stellar sort, the fourth season of Battlestar Galactica premieres Friday.

The House and Senate both return at 2 p.m. today, and the dissettlement of the financial and housing markets will loom. Senate Democratic leaders want to move a housing assistance bill, the Foreclosure Prevention Act (S. 2636), and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies to the Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday.

The House will consider H.R. 5501, funding the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — $50 billion over five years. And if the President sends the Colombia Free Trade Act to the Hill, it comes first to the House. The floor schedule for the week is here.

House Hearings: On Tuesday, the Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee considers “Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the Pursuit of Alternatives.” . NAM Board Member John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., and top executives from ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron and ConocoPhillips will testify.

Two hearings of note on Wednesday by the transportation subcommittee of Appropriations: 10 a.m. on “Highway and Transit Programs: Urgent Funding Needs”; 2 p.m. on “National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.”

Senate Hearings: A HELP Committee subcommittee holds a hearing Tuesday on OSHA violations. (Details.) The full Commerce Committee marks up legislation on Wednesday, including S. 2688, the Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, and H.R. 802, Maritime Pollution Prevention Act. Also Wednesday, Environment and Public Works holds an oversight hearing on an Endangered Species listing for the polar bear. The high-profile hearing of the week is Senate Banking on Thursday, considering financial turmoil, with Secretary Paulson, Fed Chairman Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Cox testifying. (Details.) Energy and Natural Resources reviews the role of institutional investors on oil prices. And Thursday sees the Finance Committee holding a hearing, “Outside the Box on Estate Tax Reform: Reviewing Ideas to Simplify Planning.” Outside the death tax box? That would be the zombie tax, then.

Executive Branch: President Bush departs today for Ukraine, Romania and Croatia. Huh. We’re spelling it Kyiv now. Bucharest remains Bucharest, which is where a NATO summit is taking place April 2nd through 4th.

George Hearst was 26 years old when he inherited his father’s debt-ridden farm in Missouri in 1846. But he noticed some people nearby were making money with a lead mine. Hearst could barely read, but he got some books on geology and became an expert.

When the California gold rush got underway, Hearst was ready. Perhaps because he knew what he was doing, he found gold – lots of it. By 1857, he had developed his first large scale mine, the LeCompton near Nevada City, California. He took profits from there to the Comstock Lode in the state of Nevada where miners were taking the gold from black ore and throwing the silver away. Hearst focused on the silver.

Hearst was also focused on efficiency and he turned the Comstock into a showpiece of cutting-edge mining technology. Later he went to San Francisco and made more money in real estate. He made even more money as a consultant to various mining interests. And then hit paydirt again at a mine in Utah.

Hearst got interested in politics, and eventually served as a Senator from California. He died in office leaving his widow and son filthy rich.

The TV show “Deadwood” on HBO portrayed Hearst as an evil robber baron who had people shot right and left. The real Hearst was tough, all right, but he was all business. When he had a problem, he called in lawyers, not gunfighters. The results were the same.