U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., is back to hedging his bets. Let's hope he doesn't get asked to place one, as he could if the Senate approves the "cap and trade" bill.
If the Senate approves the measure, it probably will do so with enough amendments that the bill requires another vote in the House of Representatives. There, you will recall, the measure was sent to the Senate on June 26 by a vote of 219-212. It is expected to be taken up in the Senate sometime in September or October.
My guess is that the political pressure exerted by President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberals in advance of the June 26 vote will seem like child's play if the measure requires another vote in the House. Were I a betting man I would place several hundred dollars on "aye" votes from some lawmakers who said no during the first vote.
Mollohan may be one of them.
Clues to his thinking are provided in a letter his office sent to a local man who had written Mollohan to complain about "cap and trade."
Mollohan stressed that he had voted against the bill because the final version "retained features that pose risks to West Virginia..." But he did so only after several days in which his staff said he had not made a commitment to vote for or against the measure.
In his letter to the local constituent, Mollohan emphasized that, "It is important to understand at the outset that 'just say no' is probably not a realistic final response to this issue." The "just say no" label has been used by several liberal proponents of "cap and trade" to criticize opponents.
Mollohan's letter included this key phrase: "I am cautiously optimistic that the Senate will further improve the legislation to a point that the bill will realistically accommodate the continued use of coal in our energy economy."
In other words, Mollohan is back in the "undecided" column.
That may cause some to speculate that, having been let off the hook by Pelosi on June 26, Mollohan now needs an excuse to just say yes if the bill comes up again in the House.
Again, let's hope it is killed in the Senate. Last week I noted that Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., showed the political courage to come out against the bill immediately. I speculated that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would oppose it and that Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, would favor "cap and trade." To judge by a story done by reporter Joselyn King, published Thursday, my predictions were on target.
But it is developing that Voinovich may be a key foe of "cap and trade."
As I did just days before the June 26 vote, Voinovich is questioning an Environmental Protection Agency report on the consequences of "cap and trade."
The agency released a report claiming that the bill, if enacted, would have "a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers, assuming the bulk of revenues from the program are returned to households." EPA analysts say "cap and trade" would cost the average U.S. household $80-$111 more a year.
But the agency admits the numbers are an average for the years 2010-2050. That ignores the much higher initial impact. It also ignores geographic differences. People in California who have little dependence on coal, for example, will not suffer much. West Virginians and Ohioans will.
Voinovich is demanding that the EPA provide a "reliable and realistic analysis" of the bill, in part by correcting flaws in its original report.
The Ohio senator is putting bite behind his bark, by putting a hold on Senate confirmation of Robert Perciasepe, Obama's nominee to be the No. 2 official at the EPA.
Voinovich is a Republican who has announced he will not seek re-election. That makes him immune to many of the pressures Obama and company could exert on him. It'll be interesting to see what they do in attempts to get the Ohio tiger off their backs.
Myer can be reached via e-mail at: Myer@theintelligencer.net.