Udall and Bennet

Rep. Cory Gardner

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, is the lone holdout in the state’s bipartisan push.

Rep. Lamborn

“My preference is to help industry grow by reducing federal regulations and mandates as opposed to carving out special interests in the tax code,” Lamborn wrote in an email to the Colorado Independent on Tuesday.

Lamborn, who is the chairman of the Natural Resources subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, recently supported H.R. 2173, the Advancing Offshore Wind Production Act, which would slash government red tape for the wind industry in seeking permits on federal lands. He also recently introduced a plan to open about 2 million acres of public lands in Utah, Wyoming and western Colorado to oil shale drilling, which environmentalists strongly oppose. The U.S. Department of Interior has different ideas and is trying to rein in oil shale leasing in the American West.

Polls show, however, that Colorado residents prefer renewable energy over fossil fuels.

Renewable energy experts say the wind production tax credit is key for Colorado.

“Manufacturing jobs are critical in America’s economic recovery,” Tim Heaton and Lee Boughey, chairs of the Colorado Energy Coalition, said in a joint statment. “The expiration of the Production Tax Credit would have a devastating impact on Colorado, affecting not only jobs and investment at our large wind manufacturers, but the many supply chain manufacturers that serve the wind industry. To provide the certainty that wind-energy companies need to create more jobs and investment in Colorado, the Colorado Energy Coalition endorses a three- to five-year extension of the PTC.”

The legislation, which President George H.W. Bush first signed into law in 1992, gives owners of wind energy farms a 2.2 cents-per-kilowatt credit on their U.S. income taxes annually for the first decade of the wind farm’s existence. It has been extended many times and is set to expire at the end of the year.

Colorado generates the third highest percentage of power from wind of any state in the nation and is home to several major wind energy developers and wind turbine manufacturing facilities.

Estimates show that wind energy employs upwards of 6,000 workers statewide.

The BLM’s proposal is a thorough overhaul of the Bush-era leasing inventory: it slashes shale from 1.9 million acres to 462,000 and sands from 431,000 acres to 91,000.

Oil shale is found in northwestern Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah and it contains an organic precursor to oil called kerogen. Despite decades of attempts, oil shale has never proven commercially viable. Squeezing fuel from the rock requires copious quantities of water and heating the shale underground to something above 700 degrees over a period of several years. Everything that must go into oil shale production is considered far more environmentally harmful than the production of conventional oil.

“While I have long felt there is potential for oil shale development, it is critical that a number of unanswered questions be resolved before commercial-scale leasing takes place,” Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, said in a prepared statement. “Fully understanding the demands of oil shale development on Colorado’s water and local communities is essential to ensuring responsible development.”

Last year, the BLM announced it would reconsider the Bush-era land leasing plan as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by environmental groups in 2009 that challenged the 2008 action.

“For the sportsmen, farmers, ranchers and communities on the Western Slope that depend on clean air and clean water, making sure development is done right the first time is vital to their way of life,” said Udall, noting that the BLM will be accepting public comment on its plan for the next 90 days.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, issued a statement reminding residents of “Black Sunday,” May 2, 1982, when Exxon’s massive Colony oil shale project went bust on the state’s Western Slope.

Udall and Bennet

Rep. Lamborn

“Oil shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made energy and the United States is fortunate to have an abundance of oil shale resources, including in Colorado,” Lamborn said.

Environmentalists and others immediately panned Lamborn’s bill.

“We already face a water shortage in the West that threatens farmers and ranchers,” said Bill Midcap of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. “We simply cannot gamble away our water on oil shale speculation at the risk of losing our farming and ranching economy that we depend upon for our food and fiber. … We should use existing research and development projects to determine how much water will be needed before we consider commercial leasing of oil shale.”

Extracting fuel from oil shale can require anywhere between three and five barrels of water for every barrel of oil — one of the many reasons why it is more costly than producing conventional crude oil. Experts say commercial oil shale production is potentially a decade away, if it ever happens at all. Yet H.R. 3408, the “Pioneers Act,” would revive a 2008 plan by the Bureau of Land Management to open about 2 million acres of public lands in Utah, Wyoming and western Colorado to oil shale drilling.

“We already face a water shortage in the West that threatens farmers and ranchers,” said Bill Midcap of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. “We simply cannot gamble away our water on oil shale speculation at the risk of losing our farming and ranching economy that we depend upon for our food and fiber. A farm economy that is crucial for our State and that is helping our State out of the recession. We should use existing research and development projects to determine how much water will be needed before we consider commercial leasing of oil shale.”

Conservation groups challenged the plan on grounds that the analysis of impacts and the process were flawed and a new proposal re-evaluating the plan is due out soon. Lamborn’s bill (pdf) would mandate commercial leasing on 125,000 acres of public lands by 2016 even though the technology isn’t in place.

“Lamborn’s approach to oil shale is ‘Ready or not here it comes,’ and we are not ready,’’ the National Wildlife Federation’s Kate Zimmerman said. “There are still very important questions to be answered about the impacts of extracting oil shale on Colorado communities, on water quantity and quality and on fish and wildlife. Let’s wait for the results of the existing research into oil shale technology that is already taking place on public lands in Colorado and Utah before we give away more public resources.”

Oil shale was behind the huge western Colorado bust of the 1980s, when Exxon shut down a massive project that threw communities and families into economic and social turmoil. Nonetheless House Speaker John Boehner recently pointed to new oil shale legislation as a way to pay for transportation projects in the next five years — a check that may be hard to cash.

“Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee botched Rep. Lamborn’s oil shale legislation hearing, which showed just how ridiculous the bill is,” said Matt Garrington, co-director of the Checks and Balances Project. “In two hours, the committee majority voted down guaranteeing oil shale technology to be American-made, ensuring that oil shale extraction won’t harm water supplies for municipalities and agriculture, and requiring commercial oil shale to be a proven revenue generator before handing over 2 million acres of public land for speculation. House Republicans did manage to preserve taxpayer handouts for oil companies by giving away oil shale at bargain-basement rates, undermining Speaker Boehner’s goal of raising transportation funds.”

The Lamborn bill would set royalty rates for oil shale starting at 5 percent for five years – compared to about 12.5 percent for extracted offshore oil and gas – and gradually raise the rate over several years. If they were ever paid, Garrington added, the lower royalties would mean less revenue for local governments, which would then shoulder the burden of costs associated with energy development such as new schools, hospitals, emergency services, roads, and other utilities.

The Pioneers Act is one of three bills concerning domestic energy that the committee approved. The GOP also voted to jump start offshore oil production and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Republicans plan to attach the bills to a $260 billion transportation package.

“Instead of legislating seriously,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, what the Republicans have done is put out “an inventory of all the worst ideas they’ve had for the last two decades.”

Lamborn’s bill still must pass the House and if it does, like the other measures the House Committee on Natural Resources passed Wednesday, it will face opposition in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Lamborn’s office told FOX31 Denver that he “respects the president personally, and the office of the president,” but that he wants to clearly relate that he “does not support the policies of Barack Obama, that they have hurt our country.”

Lamborn represents solidly Republican Congressional District 5, which turns around one of the top military and evangelical cities in the nation, Colorado Springs. Lamborn learned this week that he is facing a 2012 primary challenge from businessman Robert Blaha, a turn of events that seemed to rile the congressman.

In announcing he was running for re-election, Lamborn asked El Paso County Republicans to approach his opponent’s candidacy with skepticism:

“Why would someone want to knock off the most conservative member of Congress?” he asked.

Udall, a moderate Democrat and member of Congress since 1999, has lamented the partisan gridlock and the politics of personal attacks that have ratcheted up in recent years. He teamed with Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in his calls for bipartisan State of the Union seating, their proposal coming the year after Obama’s first State of the Union address, at which South Carolina Republican Joe Wislon burst out with a red-faced accusation that the president was a liar. Wilson later apologized but the heckling registered as a low point. Even in the moment, the outburst raised a disappointed “ooh” from the chamber, clearly took congressional veteran Speaker Nancy Pelosi by surprise and reduced Vice President Joe Biden to dejected head shaking.

Last week Udall and Murkowski wrote a letter to Republican and Democratic congressional leaders renewing their call for mixed seating and setting out their reasoning.

Political differences will always generate a healthy debate, but too often our dialogue impedes the progress demanded by the American people. Hyper-partisanship has frequently kept Congress from finding common-sense solutions that could spur economic growth or help our middle class. It’s little wonder that the American people have such a low regard for Congress and a lack of confidence in their governmental institutions.

So, now more than ever, we have the obligation to show that there is a place for civility on Capitol Hill and that civility can lead to problem-solving. As we saw last year, bipartisan seating reduced the division we had witnessed for decades at the annual State of the Union address, where Members traditionally took part in choreographed standing and clapping on one side of the Chamber while the other side sat in silent protest. That is an image unbecoming of our institution, especially when we should be striving for ways to put aside our differences and stand united.

“We ask for your assistance in making this a permanent tradition,” they wrote. Udall and Murkowski plan to sit together tomorrow night for the speech.

Udall spoke with CNN recently about the State of the Union address.

[Image: Sen Udall, left, Rep Lamborn, right ]

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Colorado U.S. Sen Mark Udall was an early critic of the bills and welcomed news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had pushed PIPA off the senate agenda.

“I want to thank the many Coloradans who spoke out loud and strong on this critically important issue,” Udall was quoted to say in a release. “Internet piracy is a serious problem, but the Protect IP Act would have had serious unintended consequences to innovation, cyber security and free speech that we simply can’t risk. Thanks to the millions of Americans who have made their voices heard, Senate leaders have decided to look for a better balance that will protect intellectual property while maintaining the open Internet. I stand ready to work with any of my colleagues to ensure whatever legislation we ultimately consider protects Internet-based innovation, security and free speech.”

In the end, the Colorado delegation, led by Udall and Rep Jared Polis (CD2), overwhelmingly came out against the bills, including Republican Reps Scott Tipton, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman. Senator Michael Bennet, originally a co-sponsor of the bill, retreated in response to concerns raised by constituents, he said.

Bennet was not alone by a long shot. Support for the bills swung wildly to opposition over the last two days, seeing traditional hundred-million-dollar lobbying efforts in support of the bills crumble under the weight of aggressive pushback from the tech industry and citizens from across the political spectrum.

ProPublica graphs visualizing shifting positions among lawmakers on the bills from Wednesday to Thursday as the bills were set to come up for votes rocketed around digital social networks.

The entertainment industry has long been working to remake the internet to restrict the “frictionless” sharing of material that defines it, working to bolster the country’s already sweeping copyright laws to give legal teams broad power to shutdown sites and wring settlements from startups and individual web users.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Given what happened to failed Colorado Republican senate candidate Ken Buck, who un-endorsed the personhood amendment shortly after he won the GOP senate primary in 2010 and was attacked nonstop on abortion issues during his campaign, we should expect the politics of this issue to be addressed by candidates and the media alike as we go into another election year.

A spokesman for Coffman said Thursday that he’d check to find out what his boss’ current position on personhood is.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo.

“Our blog reports on our candidate survey results,” Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks emailed me. “Congressman Coffman answered all our questions correctly to reflect he is a no exceptions pro life elected official who supports the personhood of the baby in the womb.”

What does “no exceptions” mean in the context of the survey?

“Babies are persons, not ‘exceptions,’” she emailed me. “No innocent baby should be punished for the crime of his or her father. If mom’s life is in danger, the doctor has two patients, and he should make every effort to save both. BTW, five of the Republican prez candidates have signed the PH pledge, so Mike is in good company.”

Gardner, whose office didn’t return a call, has been described by a leading personhood activist as a “main supporter,” and the Colorado Right to Life blog showers praise on him for being “100 percent pro-life.”

Colorado Right To Life describes Lamborn’s position this way: “Incumbent Republican Doug Lamborn has always been solid on life issues, and has co-sponsored Personhood legislation at the national level.”

Personhood USA Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones said he has no reason to believe his initiative will receive less support this time around than in 2010.

“I think a majority them [major candidates] supported us last time,” he said. “And most of them were elected. I think the highest profile ones, like Ken Buck, who did waver, were the ones that suffered because they still got punished by the Democrats, and they didn’t have the benefit of the support of the base.”

Garcia Jones welcomes an expected lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, trying to disqualify the ballot measure, because it motivates his base of supporters. “The only real concern for us was the fatigue of the base, and we rely on the base to get signatures,” he said. “So a lawsuit actually helps us. We’re not upset at being sued.”

State Senator Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, who’s sponsored personhood legislation at the Capitol during his political career, said he supports the efforts to pass the personhood amendment in 2012.

“It’s never wrong to support life,” he said. “Science is showing more and more that life is present at the earliest stages. And we have to give it a chance to prosper in this country.”

Renfroe said he thinks a ballot initiative is the “proper place” to bring the issue up, as the state legislature should focus on “jobs and the economy.”

Asked whether he thought past personhood supporters, like Coffman and Gardner, would support the measure in 2012, Renfroe said, “I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.”

Jason Salzman runs the BigMedia blog.

The report, commissioned by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Howard Berman, D-Calif., notes that, as of Dec. 15, the Republican-led 112th Congress voted a record 191 times on legislation that would undermine environmental protections.

The House averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day Congress was in session during 2011, which equates to more than one out of every five of all roll call votes, the report found.

Rep. Cory Gardner

Gardner was one of at least a dozen Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee who made public statements indicating that they question or reject the scientific consensus that climate change is predominantly human caused.

“Rep. Cory Gardner admitted that the climate is changing but said that he does not ‘believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news,’” according to the report (pdf), which notes that House Republicans also voted to block the EPA from regulating carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries, and they voted to prevent the EPA from working with the Department of Transportation and the automobile industry to develop fuel economy standards for vehicles.

The report also calls out Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., who introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which seeks to overturn the EPA’s finding that climate change endangers human welfare and to upend the Supreme Court’s decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The bill also prohibits the EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements to collect emissions information.

“During the floor debate about the Upton bill, the House Republicans voted against several Democratic amendments to restore [the] EPA’s authority to address climate change. Only one Republican supported an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., to allow the EPA Administrator to suspend the bill’s prohibitions if impacts from climate change affect public health.”

The attacks on climate science aren’t exactly a surprise.

In 2010, Gardner and fellow Colorado Republican U.S. Reps. Scott Tipton, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman signed a “No Climate Tax Pledge” in which they promised to oppose “any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”

That same year, Native Alaskans and environmental groups successfully appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board to overturn a permit the EPA issued to Shell Oil Co. for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off the coast of Alaska. During an appropriations debate, the House obstructed the Appeals Board from using government funds to invalidate the permit.

“Rep. Cory Gardner then introduced H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which makes significant revisions to Clean Air Act provisions relating to [Outer Continental Shelf] activities,” the Waxman, Markey and Berman report states. “The bill limits EPA review of a permit application to six months; it eliminates any appeal to the Board, forcing all appeals to be brought in federal court in Washington, D.C.; it blocks EPA from requiring pollution reductions from support vessels, which often comprise the bulk of emissions from a drilling operation; and it provides that the impact of emissions from [Outer Continental Shelf] sources must be measured at the shoreline, where the emissions are diluted, rather than at the source, as current law provides.”

At the time, House Republicans said the purpose of H.R. 2021 was to accelerate the permitting process in the Arctic Ocean. But the bill was drafted so that it also applied to both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts despite objections from officials in California, Delaware and other states.

“This bill will create tens of thousands of jobs, increase energy security, and lessen our dependence on foreign oil,” Gardner said in a press release at the time. “It will add billions of dollars in salary to Alaska and other states over the next several decades, bringing good paying jobs to our country.”

The EPA isn’t the only agency in the GOP’s crosshairs. The House targeted the Department of the Interior with 35 votes meant to weaken its authority and the Department of Energy with 31 of them.

The report goes on to detail how the House proposed to slash funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, cut clean-energy programs, curtail reviews of the Keystone XL pipeline, allow unsafe disposal of toxic coal ash, transfer public lands to a mining company, remove protections for forests and wetlands, repeal water quality standards, and promote loopholes for polluters.

On Dec. 7, the House passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, or H.R. 10, which requires approval from both houses of Congress before federal agencies can implement any significant rule, including those to protect the environment and public health. “In effect, this bill would force Congress to re-legislate provisions in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws that require the agencies to conduct significant rulemakings. If Congress fails to act on a rule, the new rule would not go into effect, delaying important safeguards and wasting years of scientific inquiry, stakeholder comment, and agency staff resources,” the report contends.

Among the 191 votes highlighted in the report, 94 percent of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86 percent of Democrats voted for the pro-environment position.

Rachel Boxer, the spokeswoman for Gardner, and Joanna Burgos, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, did not return messages seeking comment for this story.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

The U.S. Senate on Saturday overwhelmingly (89-10) passed a two-month extension that the House rejected 229-193 on Tuesday, with House Speaker John Boehner and the conservative Republican caucus insisting on a one-year extension. House and Senate Democrats are refusing to play ball.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo.

“Congress can’t even agree on a tax cut they all agree with,” said Joe Miklosi, a Democrat running for Coffman’s 6th Congressional District seat. “Senate Republicans and Democrats managed to negotiate a reasonable compromise and it’s unacceptable that House Republicans continue the relentless partisan bickering. The consequences of a failure to act will have major economic repercussions.”

The only silver lining for some Democrats and members of Colorado’s conservation community is that a provision compelling President Obama to fast track a decision on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline is also caught up in the congressional stalemate. Coffman this morning was blasted by environmental groups for supporting the provision.

Colorado activists wearing Santa hats delivered coal and sang coal carols at Coffman’s Lone Tree office. They accused Coffman of pandering to energy interests, which they say have contributed more than $145,000 to his re-election campaign.

“The House brings shame on itself when its members take tens of millions in big oil money and then do the industry’s bidding,” 350.org founder Bill McKibben said in a release. “Keystone XL creates no net jobs and pours carbon into the atmosphere. That’s why millions across the country opposed it. Its only beneficiaries are the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they support.”

The Keystone XL provision was seen as sweetener in the deal to get House Republicans to vote for the payroll tax break, but apparently it wasn’t enough to overcome reservations about the length of the deal. But DeGette said that the Senate deal is the best that can be hoped for in the current political climate.

“While a two-month extension is far from ideal, given the intransigence that has marked this year in Congress, and the difficult negotiations that have already taken place on this bill, it is clear more time is needed to develop an effective year-long solution,” DeGette said.

“This short-term extension would allow time for more negotiation without forcing American families to endure a tax hike or the devastating consequences of losing their unemployment benefits.”

Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn also tried to blame the Senate: “I urge my Democrat colleagues in the Senate to return to Washington and work with the House on a bill to give a full year tax break to American families. The House stands ready to get the job done and work through the holidays, just as many other Americans are doing. We are committed to giving middle class families a tax cut for a full year as the President has requested.”

But even some Senate Republicans are calling out their counterparts in the House.

“It is harming the Republican Party. It is harming the view, if it’s possible anymore, of the American people about Congress,” Arizona Sen. John McCain told CNN. “And we’ve got to get this thing resolved and with the realization that the payroll tax cut must remain in effect.”

House Republican leaders want Senate Democrats to return to Washington and appoint conferees to negotiate a deal with the House.

“We believe there is common ground on this issue and we can provide some certainty in a full year’s worth of tax relief for the working taxpayers of this country,” House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said in a release. “Now it’s up to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, because the bill is back in the Senate.”

DeGette urged Reid to do the same thing:

“I had no choice but to vote against the politically motivated motion to go to conference,” she said in a statement. “However, given the dire consequences for the American people, I must now strongly urge … Reid to appoint conferees and work toward a common-sense solution for our nation before Jan. 1. I stand ready to vote at any time to help the millions of Americans who rely upon these critical funds.”

The Sand Hills area of Nebraska.

“Our organization has over 1 million members nationwide, including tens of thousands in swing states like Colorado. All eyes are on the White House now.”

The Obama administration in November won environmental praise for delaying a decision until 2013 on the pipeline that would transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast of Texas. Early plans for the route included an alternative through Colorado, but later versions ran through Nebraska, where lawmakers were poised to fight possible impacts to the Sand Hills area.

House Republicans working on the payroll tax relief and unemployment extension bill included a provision asking Obama to review the Keystone XL proposal and make a decision within two months.

“This bill … accelerates a decision on the Keystone XL energy pipeline, a measure that will help the private sector create more jobs,” Colorado Republican Rep. Cory Gardner said in a release over the weekend. “It requires that a permitting decision on the pipeline be made within 60 days unless the president determines the project is not in the national interest.”

But now the entire bill, which would also stop a nearly 30 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, is stalled because House Republicans are insisting on at least a one-year deal instead of the two-month stop-gap measure the Senate overwhelmingly passed on Saturday. House Speaker John Boehner wants Congress to work through the holidays, but Democrats and even some Senate Republicans say they’re tired of the uncompromising position of House GOP members.

The inclusion of the Keystone XL provision was seen as a huge victory for House Republicans who bristled at Obama’s delay, saying the administration was putting environmental considerations over jobs creation.

“President Obama wants to delay a final decision on the project for a full year, after the next election,” said Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn. “That massive project will not only bring much needed oil to America’s refineries, it will create 20,000 [jobs] just in the construction of the pipeline alone.”

However, even the job numbers have been called into question on the proposed pipeline, which environmentalists fear will expose large swaths of the nation to potential pipeline spills while allowing the free flow of tar sands oil – one of the most carbon-intensive forms of petroleum production.

Locally, the Suncor refinery in Commerce City that recently spilled sludge into a tributary of the Platte River refines oil pumped in by pipeline from the tar sands fields of Alberta. Pipeline safety has been a hot topic since this summer’s ExxonMobil spill in the Yellowstone River of Montana.

Climate change author and activist Bill McKibben skewered the inclusion of Keystone XL in the payroll tax relief bill.

“The dirty energy industry wants the pipeline fast-tracked, and is demanding that the president grant or deny a permit within two months; they’re going to do all they can to make that happen,” McKibben wrote on his group’s website.

“The administration knows that Americans don’t want that permit granted,” McKibben said. “They know because many of you encircled the White House in November, and submitted more public comments than on any energy project in history, and because yesterday the climate movement flooded the White House switchboard with so many phone calls that the busy signal was the sound of the day.”

“This entire session of Congress has felt to many of us like a trip into Alice’s Wonderland,” the eight-term Democrat from Colorado said Thursday. “While our nation struggles with a devastating economy … we do nothing about jobs or getting America back to work; instead we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole of extreme legislation, and now with this so-called ‘Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act,’ it would seem we’re having tea with the Cheshire Cat. To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat, ‘We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad … You must be mad or you wouldn’t have come here.’”

The fact that the Environmental Protection Agency maintains it has no plans to regulate farm dust is only partially what left DeGette challenging the sanity of her colleagues at a time when their approval rating lags behind both President Nixon during Watergate and Paris Hilton circa 2005. She was also tripping out that they refused to limit the scope of H.R. 1633 to agriculture, as its title implies.

U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn — Coloradans who co-sponsored the bill — and their Republican cohorts shot down several amendments that would have exempted farm dust from the Clean Air Act but would have ensured the EPA can regulate coarse particulate matter from the mining and extraction industries, or dust that contains arsenic or other heavy metals, or dust that substantially harms public health.

DeGette floated a “motion to recommit” that sought to refer the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act back to committee so the legislation would clearly state that the EPA could still be able to regulate dangerous asbestos, lead and cadmium emissions but the GOP-led House rejected that too.

Rep. Diana DeGette

Republicans defended the legislation.

“While our nation’s farmers are expected to continue meeting the needs of a growing population, unnecessary regulations that place increased burdens on American agriculture are making production more costly and challenging — hurting jobs and small businesses,” Tipton said in a prepared statement. “I urge the Senate to quickly send this common sense pro-jobs bill to the President.”

Rep. Scott Tipton

Many Democrats counter the bill is a solution in search of a problem. A white rabbit.

“The truth is that the EPA doesn’t currently regulate farm dust. This bill would prevent a regulation that doesn’t actually exist, from overseeing something undefined,” DeGette told the House. “… Sadly for the American people, H.R. 1633 simply underscores the ‘madness’ of this body right now.”