Ten Democrats joined 219 Republicans to help the House pass legislation Thursday that would limit President Obama’s efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants.
Only three Republicans — Reps. Chris Gibson of New York, Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey — voted against the bill that was approved on a tally of 229-183.
The measure has little chance of getting through the Democratic-controlled Senate, and even if it did the White House issued a veto threat against the bill earlier this week.
The chief Republican sponsor of the bill, Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, said the bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing limits on power-plant emissions that adversely affected the economy. “Far from barring EPA from controlling greenhouse-gas emissions, by insisting on standards based on proven technologies our approach will actually work,” Whitfield said in a joint statement with the Democratic sponsor of a similar bill in the Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
The bill would prevent EPA from issuing emission limits for future power plants unless it could show the standard had been met for a full year at six different plants using existing technology. It also would block new regulations set to be issued this year for existing power plants until Congress voted to set the effective date.
“If this bill were to become law, it would seriously cripple the Obama administration’s ongoing drive to curb dangerous carbon pollution, which is harming our air, our lands, and our waters, and push us ever faster on a path to unmanageable climate disruption,” said Dan Lashof, program director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Democrats who voted for the bill were Reps. John Barrow and Sanford Bishop, both of Georgia; Jim Costa of California; Henry Cuellar of Texas; Bill Enyart of Illinois; Jim Matheson of Utah; Mike McIntyre of North Carolina; Collin Peterson of Minnesota; Nick Rahall of West Virginia; and Terri Sewell of Alabama.
What We're Following See More »
The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."
"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."
"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "
"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.