|
 |
 |
|
Republicans back off Pickens gas bill amid conservative group onslaught
A pair of House Republicans on Thursday withdrew their names from popular bipartisan legislation backed by billionaire energy magnate T. Boone Pickens that's designed to spur use of natural gas-powered trucks.
Their decisions come amid a campaign by several conservative groups — such as Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity — to scuttle the bill.
Reps. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) and Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) dropped their sponsorship of the so-called Nat Gas Act on Thursday. Conservative Reps. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) withdrew their names this month as well.
The bill — which is aimed at displacing oil reliance — authorizes billions of dollars in tax credits and other support for natural-gas vehicles, with a focus on jump-starting a transition to the fuel in the trucking industry.
“My support of this act was conflicting with my desire to simplify the tax code,” said Thompson, who signed onto the measure in early April.
He also cited his “confidence in natural gas as a commercially viable” energy source.
Griffin, in a statement, said he began taking a second look at the bill a couple of weeks ago, even though it is a “well-intentioned” bill that seeks to promote an abundant American energy source.
“I am concerned that H.R. 1380 might be inconsistent with my goal of simplifying the tax code by lowering the overall tax rate and simultaneously ending industry-specific incentives,” he said, referring to the bill by its official number.
A wave of conservative defections could signal trouble for the bill. But for now, Rep. John Sullivan’s (R-Okla.) bipartisan plan still has 186 co-sponsors. The wide support runs the gamut from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats and members in between.
Sullivan, in a statement to The Hill, defended his bill.
"The Nat Gas Act is a real solution to a serious national security issue — it backs American-made energy over OPEC oil,” he said.
The conservative groups are circulating letters that characterize the bill as undue federal intervention into energy markets.
The influential group Americans for Tax Reform, in a letter to House members this month, argues that “conservatives must begin peeling back the numerous duplicative regulations and laws that facilitate or impede certain types of energy.”
“Unfortunately, H.R. 1380 takes the opposite approach, instead piling more rules, grants and tax policies onto America’s already encumbered energy sector,” the group writes.
Americans for Prosperity, in its own letter to House lawmakers this month, argues that the bill represents “preferable treatment for an industry with deep pockets and expensive lobbyists” and claims that “government should not be in the position of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.”
Another group, the Club for Growth, doesn’t like a provision stating that EPA’s planned greenhouse gas standards for trucks should incentivize and reward manufacturers of natural-gas vehicles.
Even the though the bill is sponsored by a parade of lawmakers who oppose EPA climate rules in general, the Club for Growth’s president took to Redstate.com Thursday to argue that the provision “lends credibility to the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.”
But Sullivan shot back Thursday at the groups attacking the bill.
“The groups radically opposing this bill don’t want to talk about the fact that American taxpayers are subsidizing foreign dictators to the tune of $1 billion per day for oil, because they don’t have a plan to address it. My bill offers the American people a new direction for energy security, and gives them options instead of $4 per gallon gasoline,” he said.
