The America COMPETES Act, first signed into law three years ago, is a very popular bill because it provides funding for basic research, math and science education, and aims to improve our Nation’s competitiveness in the world.  Because COMPETES is so popular, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

In 2007, the House-passed bill was a $24 billion package.  However, the 2010 version was $96 billion, as introduced. Numerous new and unnecessary programs were added, and other programs were expanded well beyond the original scope and intent of the 2007 bill.  Even after a few very modest concessions, this reauthorization still spends twice as much as the original bill.

Regardless, a lot of people were disappointed when two weeks ago it was pulled from the House floor before final passage, and then again last week when it was defeated by a straight up or down vote.  Voting against a popular bill is a tough choice.  However, I and many of my Republican colleagues voted ‘no,’ not because we want to play political games, but because we believe the bill can be better.

The vote to improve the bill came on May 13^th in the form of a Motion to Recommit (MTR), which passed the House with bipartisan support, by a vote of 292 to 126, resulting in the Democrats’ decision to pull the bill from consideration.  Blogs and a few editorial boards have been openly critical of this attempt to improve the bill, going so far as to say it was instead an effort to “kill” or “derail” the COMPETES reauthorization.

Democrats argue that the MTR included a difficult-to-vote-against provision that would disallow funds from paying the salary of any government employee disciplined for viewing or downloading pornographic material on his or her work computer.  I believe the “porn” provision has merit in addressing a very serious policy issue. I believe what is overlooked is that the MTR also included very substantive provisions to address Republican concerns raised throughout the legislative process.

(more…)

So, now that we’ve opened this can, just how sweeping is the “global warming” bills’ curiously identical Sec. 707?

At risk of getting into a peeing match which my time budget may not allow me to finish, I believe that the dispute between Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air and the folks at the WashingtonExaminer joining Sen. David Vitter (and, by implication, I suppose me) is not necessary but worth resolving. Caution: it is also for the legislatively inclined or otherwise the pointy-headed. But, since I arguably joined the fray here on Big Government on Tuesday, here goes.

At issue is a provision buried in both the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer “global warming” bills.

I had to leave for a few hours after starting my comment on this, in which time I decided not to wage the war over how strongly we need to argue that it prima facie nullifies the rest of the respective legislative language that too many lobbyists tout was carefully crafted to provide “certainty”. Lobbyists of course tend to say things reflecting well on their defense of client interests.

What is inescapable is that this language dispels such notions of certainty. But that shouldn’t be shocking. The bills statutorily establish “global warming” causation, for every existing or new increment of GHGs (read: employers, economic activity), as well as harm caused. And they fail to preempt states and elsewhere EPA as needed, or the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, or every other tool that’s already being tried out as a “global warming” law. Let alone the rest of the U.S. Code. All of which is relevant to context, as we shall see.

(more…)