From The Hill, E2Wire, the environmental and energy blog, “Rockefeller may back Murkowski plan to block EPA climate rules,” reporting on the remarks Monday by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) that he “could very well” support the resolution of disapproval sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

“It is a message about EPA,” Rockefeller told reporters in the Capitol on Monday evening. “I think it will send a message regardless of how many votes it gets.” That message, he added, “would be with respect to EPA’s closing in on coal.”

Meanwhile, Climate Wire reports Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) in effect asking the EPA to force Congress into making policy.

Begich said he is “strongly considering” voting against Murkowski’s resolution to block EPA from issuing climate regulations because the EPA threat keeps pressure on the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy bill.

“We need a comprehensive energy plan and if this keeps the fire under these guys to get something major done, I’m all for it,” Begich said.

You know, with an activist judiciary writing laws and legislators abdicating their responsibilities to the Executive Branch, we won’t need a Congress anymore. Much more efficient for getting things done.

In the oddest twist of fate, manufacturers, telecoms and consumers are all breathing a sigh of relief upon hearing that both the House and Senate Commerce Committees are contemplating a rewrite of telecommunications law to acknowledge the existence of the Internet. Ah, sweet, sweet regulation!

As you’ll remember, the FCC received a judicial noogie* from the DC Circuit when it ruled the FCC didn’t have the authority to chastise Comcast for steering Internet bandwidth away from poor, defenseless children who were stealing movies and music on BitTorrent, and instead diverting it to evil doers implicated in healthcare, education, global commerce and other nefarious, high-bandwidth practices. Nevertheless, FCC Julius Genachowski decided that he’d give himself the authority to regulate the Internet by rejiggering Title II of the Telecom Act by reclassifying it as a telecommunications service, as opposed to a data service.

Well, following hot on the heels of letters from 74 House Democrats and 37 Senate Republicans, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Senate Commerce Chair John Rockefeller announced that they’ll develop proposals to update the Communications Act, starting in June.

Gentlemen, you get the humble thanks of a grateful manufacturing sector. The FCC’s proposed boot-strapping of regulatory authority would’ve only served to chill broadband deployment and investment in the telecom sector, with manufacturers and consumers getting the short end of the stick. Of course, there’ll be concern over whether or not net neutrality provisions will be foisted upon network managers, but at least through a legitimate legislative process, everyone will have the opportunity to be heard. And Mr. Chairmen, you have our deepest appreciation.

* It’s a legal term of art. Really, it’s in Black’s Law Dictionary.

From a news release, office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), “Rockefeller Introduces Legislation to Suspend EPA Action and Protect Clean Coal State Economies.” The Senator said:

Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology. This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. Administrator Jackson responded quickly and showed some willingness to move the agency’s timetable for regulation to the end of 2010. This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time. We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need. At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency.

House legislation is being introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV).

The National Association of Manufacturers opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and the NAM contends that the agency’s attempt to hit only large, stationary emitters lacks any statutory basis. Sen. Rockefeller’s legislation is a move in the right direction.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has sponsored a Congressional resolution of regulatory disapproval (S.J.Res. 26), issued a statement on Sen. Rockefeller’s bill:

Senator Rockefeller’s legislation is further evidence of the growing, bipartisan, and bicameral resistance to EPA’s back-door climate regulations. Given the overwhelming opposition to these actions, I’m hopeful that this bill will draw additional support and advance quickly.

If that does not occur, the disapproval resolution is guaranteed consideration in the Senate. It’s imperative that senators have an opportunity to vote on whether or not they support EPA’s costly, unilateral and unprecedented attempt to impose these command-and-control regulations.

• New York Times, “Coal-State Dems Unveil Bills Stalling EPA Emission Curbs“
• Bloomberg, “Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Delay EPA Carbon Rules“
• Politico, “Rockefeller aims to block EPA rules“

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) last week led a group of eight Democratic Senators who, in a letter, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency on plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. As Sen. Rockefeller said in a release announcing the letter:

At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put the decisions about our energy future in to the hands of the people and their elected representatives-especially on issues impacting clean coal. EPA actions in this area would have enormous implications and these issues need to be handled carefully and appropriately dealt with by the Congress, not in isolation by a federal environmental agency.

It’s not just in hard times, either. Policy decisions should always be put in the hands of the people and their elected representatives. The executive branch regulates and administrates, but in a representative democracy, it doesn’t arrogate policy decisions to itself.

Joining Rockefeller in the letter were Sens. Mark Begich (AK), Robert Byrd (WV), Sherrod Brown (OH), Robert Casey (PA), Clare McCaskill (MO), Carl Levin (MI), and Max Baucus (MT). The full letter is here.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) this week welcomed the Senators’ letter and noted the bipartisan support for her resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res. 26) that would stop the EPA’s power grab. In a release, she said:

Congress remains the appropriate body to develop climate policy. Having evaluated and pursued other options to respond to EPA’s proposed regulations in the past, I’m convinced that alternatives to the disapproval resolution will face a difficult path forward. Economically damaging regulations will be no more acceptable at some later date.

I commend my colleagues for becoming more engaged in this important issue and hope they will show their commitment by signing on as co-sponsors of the disapproval resolution. It’s time to take the threat of EPA’s command-and-control regulations off the table. 

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says health care vote may wait until 2010.

Senate leader Harry Reid, facing a handful of moderate Democrats who might not vote for a bill that contains the public option of a government-run program that liberals favor, said Tuesday that his chamber would “not be bound by any timelines.”

Politico, “Climate change on the back burner?”

Climate change has slipped so far down on the agenda that at least one key committee chairman has suggested it might have to wait until after the 2010 elections.

Because, you know, it gets much easier to legislate on these trillion-dollar, economy-restructuring bills during an election year.

Reaction and excerpts from statements and news releases on the Senate passage Wednesday of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act.

• President Bush’s statement, “President Bush Pleased by Passage of FISA Reform Legislation“: “This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they’re saying, and what they’re planning. It will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will, themselves, be protected from lawsuits for past or future cooperation with the government. It will uphold our most solemn obligation as officials of the federal government to protect the American people.”

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller news release, “Rockefeller Calls Final Pasage of New FISA Law Critical for National Security“: “Far too often, national security issues have been sidelined or delayed because of accusations and attempts to score political points. That’s what makes today so remarkable. Both sides have come together for the sake of national security and passed a bill that will modernize the nation’s surveillance laws so that they are effective and relevant in the 21st Century.

• Sen. Kit Bond news release, “Bond hails Senate passage of surveillance bill“:  Bond praised his colleagues for rejecting the misinformation spread by left-wing fringe groups like Moveon.org and instead putting our intelligence community back in the business of listening in on foreign terrorist in foreign countries.  Before the final vote, the Senate again rejected attempts to kill the terrorist tracking program by stripping civil liability protection for telecommunications providers.  Bond stressed that it is only right to give these patriotic companies who assisted the government in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks protection from frivolous law suits.  Also, civil liability protection is critical to the future cooperation of our private partners, without whom the terrorist surveillance program could not operate.

• ACLU news release, “Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill And Grants Sweeping Immunity To Phone Companies“: “This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.” 

• Electronic Frontier Foundation news release, “Senate Joins House in Caving to White House Immunity Demands…Telecoms Let Off the Hook for Illegal Spying – For Now”: “”We thank those senators who courageously opposed telecom immunity and vow to them, and to the American people, that the fight for accountability over the president’s illegal surveillance is not over,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “Even though Congress has failed to protect the privacy of Americans and uphold the rule of law, we will not abandon our defense of liberty. We will fight this unconstitutional grant of immunity in the courtroom and in the Congress, requesting repeal of the immunity in the next session, while seeking justice from the Judiciary. Nor can the lawless officials who approved this massive violation of Americans’ rights rest easy, for we will file a new suit against the government and challenge warrantless wiretapping, past, present and future.”

The Washington Post’s editorial, “FISA’s Fetters,” refutes the arguments of the ACLU and others who claims H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, will cause even further loss of U.S. citizens’ privacy.

The measure requires an individualized, court-approved warrant to conduct surveillance targeted at Americans’ communications with those overseas and — in an expansion of existing FISA protections — at Americans abroad. Purely domestic-to-domestic communications, even among foreigners here, would require a warrant as well. Intelligence agencies would be able to target and collect the communications of non-Americans “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” even if their phone calls or e-mails passed through or were stored in the United States. But the agencies are required to adopt procedures to “prevent the intentional acquisition” of purely domestic communications and to minimize the retention and dissemination of such information.

It is true, as Mr. Feingold suggested, that Americans’ communications with parties overseas could be monitored without any showing of cause — but it is true, as well, that such warrantless monitoring is permitted under the original FISA so long as the collection is done overseas. In addition to the extra protections for Americans abroad, the special FISA court would have to approve the targeting and minimization procedures involving domestic surveillance to ensure that they are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the law. In addition, the measure prohibits so-called “reverse targeting” — using the authority to intercept foreign communications without an individual warrant if the real purpose is to spy on a “particular, known person” in this country. This hardly seems unfettered.

So a vote against the bill is a vote against these protections…

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) provided a lengthy, valuable summary of the legislation on the Senate floor yesterday. His remarks are here.

The Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) also spoke at length, focusin on the immunity provisions. His remarks are here.

CQ Politics has a story. National Journal’s story is here.