Mereja

Author: Aaron Wiener

  • Graham: After Health Care Fight, Conservative Dems Won’t Support Climate Legislation

    Meet Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the only man in Washington who’s actively working to undermine legislation he’s in the process of writing.

    Graham’s surprising (and politically brave) work on a comprehensive climate bill with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has been punctuated by hedges and backtracks, all while insisting he’s committed to passing the legislation. Today is no exception.

    The Hill reports:

    Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters Thursday that Democrats from conservative states will now be less likely to embrace the climate effort now that they’ve cast a tough vote on healthcare.

    “I think it creates risk aversion,” he told reporters after the Senate passed a package of changes to the health care law.

    Graham singled out Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Jon Tester and Ben Nelson as being less likely to vote for climate change.

    “Go talk to Blanche Lincoln. ‘Hey, you want to do energy and climate? You want to do immigration?’ Go talk to [Jon]Tester, to Ben Nelson, give them a shout-out,” he said. “I just think the idea of doing hard things has been tainted because the blowback they are getting on health care has made them risk averse.”

    He insists he’ll “continue to work with Kerry and Lieberman to put together a bill on energy and climate that looks at an old problem in a new way” — but in a Washington culture where perception is everything, they can’t be thanking him for announcing that a contingent of Democrats won’t be likely to support their efforts.

  • Swing Senators Urge Climate Action

    The Senate is expected to pass the House’s health care reconciliation fix this week — and after the upper chamber’s members return from spring recess, they can finally turn their attention to other major legislation. But environmental advocates have feared that with a jobs bills, financial regulation and possibly immigration reform on the table, comprehensive climate legislation could get pushed back until it’s too late.

    Today, 22 Democratic senators signed a letter urging action on a climate bill this year. And while the support of less than half the Democratic caucus wouldn’t ordinarily be noteworthy, what’s interesting here is the makeup of the letter’s signatories: They’re almost all moderates or representatives of states with significant industrial or fossil fuel interests. Take a look at the list (via Dave Roberts):

    • Tom Udall (NM)
    • Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
    • Michael Bennet (CO)
    • Kay Hagan (NC)
    • Ron Wyden (OR)
    • Mark Begich (AK)
    • Sherrod Brown (OH)
    • Tom Harkin (IA)
    • Tom Carper (DE)
    • Mark Udall (CO)
    • Al Franken (MN)
    • Debbie Stabenow (MI)
    • Jeff Merkley (OR)
    • Patty Murray (WA)
    • Ted Kaufman (DE)
    • [Roland] Burris (IL)
    • Bob Casey Jr. (PA)
    • Mark Warner (VA)
    • Maria Cantwell (WA)
    • Arlen Specter (PA)
    • Jon Tester (MT)
    • Amy Klobuchar (MN)

    Not exactly jam-packed with coastal liberals. As Roberts points out, Casey, Begich, Tester, Stabenow and Cantwell are all arguably fence-sitters on the issue — and a number of others have expressed reservations about carbon-capping legislation.

    The full letter is available here (PDF).

  • KGL Bill Earns Praise From Both Industry and Enviros; Something’s Gotta Give

    Yesterday, I noted that industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are saying some not-unflattering things about the climate bill being unveiled by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — something which ought to get environmental advocates a bit concerned about what’s in the bill. But now a funny thing’s happening: Environmental analysts on the left are also sounding cautiously optimistic about the legislation.

    Here’s Brad Plumer’s take at The New Republic:

    Honestly, this sounds pretty similar to the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House last June. … Like the House bill, the Senate proposal aims to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020—which is, as I’ve mentioned before, a much weaker goal than many scientists have said is needed to stave off drastic climate change. That said, it is the short-term target the United States committed to at Copenhagen.

    Later, he tweeted, “Surprised that rumored Senate climate proposal is pretty similar to House bill (for now). Expected so, so much worse.”

    Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress posted a chart comparing the Senate proposal (or what we know of it) to the House bill — and while there are some important differences (and deficiencies in the Senate version), the overarching targets and contours are pretty similar.

    So what does this mean? An optimistic take for environmental advocates is that Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have managed to strike exactly the right balance, one that will successfully reduce emissions and jumpstart our transition to clean energy without losing the support of the business community.

    And for the pessimistic view, here’s Plumer:

    [C]onsider the flurry of stories this week about how the Chamber of Commerce’s chief lobbyist, Bruce Josten, thought the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill was “largely in sync” with industry demands. And yet, judging from the early rumors, the proposal doesn’t sound radically different from the House bill (which the Chamber loathed). Surely both things can’t keep being true, right?

    Update: Twenty leading environmental groups just came out in support of the KGL efforts. Kate Sheppard has more.

  • So Much for Global Cooling: 2010 Temperatures Flirt With Records

    This winter, environmental advocates cringed at every falling snowflake, knowing full well that climate change skeptics would point to them as a refutation of global warming, or even evidence of “global cooling.” (Donald Trump went so far as to call for the Nobel Committee to rescind Al Gore’s Peace Prize amid heavy snow last month.)

    But now the Northeast’s snowy January and February have given way to a balmy March — and, more meaningfully, global temperatures have been setting records in 2010. Check out this graphic from the University of Alabama:

    temp lines

    The yellow line represents average temperatures over the past 20 years. The purple line indicates record highs over the same period. And that green line — the highest of all? That’s global temperatures so far this year.

    Of course, it’s just as silly to point to a few warm months as evidence of global warming as it is to point to a few cold ones as evidence of global cooling. But add to these data points the fact that the 2000s were the hottest decade on record, and you start to see a trend that a few flurries can’t call into question.

    (Via Joe Romm, who also points out that the slightly different NASA data show January and February to be tied for the second-hottest on record.)

  • Senators Unveil Outline of Climate Bill

    In a closed-door meeting with industry groups today, the three senators crafting climate legislation revealed the broad strokes of their bill and met with general approval. E&E News (sub. req’d.) reports:

    Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) shared an eight-page outline of their draft legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next four decades, including provisions to limit business costs while ramping up domestic production of oil, gas and nuclear power.

    According to several sources in the meeting room, the bill calls for greenhouse gas curbs across multiple economic sectors, with a 2020 target of reducing emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels and an 80 percent limit at midcentury. Power plant emissions would be regulated in 2012, with other major industrial sources being phased in starting in 2016.

    Lest environmental advocates get overly excited, the bill contains some major concessions to industry. Five of its eight titles — Refining, America’s Farmers, Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear — will make green activists a bit wary. And E&E adds this tidbit:

    In a bow to industry demands, the senators’ proposal would pre-empt U.S. EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act and halt dozens of state climate laws and regulations now on the books.

    Not surprisingly, business and industry groups were fairly encouraged by today’s presentation. Here’s what the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told The Hill:

    “The fairest comment would be, directionally speaking, the way they are trying to conform and shape this bill I would suggest is largely in sync with what most people in American industry think is the direction you are going to have to go if you are going to have a successful program,” Josten said.

    Kerry says the tripartisan climate team will deliver a full outline of the bill to a larger group of senators next Tuesday.

  • With Friends Like These, Mother Earth Needs No Enemies

    Can’t figure out why an increasing number of Americans doubt the threat of climate change? Well, check out where they’re getting their information.

    From John Horgan in Scientific American:

    Two sources at the Science Times section of the New York Times have told me that a majority of the section’s editorial staff doubts that human-induced global warming represents a serious threat to humanity.

    Environmental advocates have long bemoaned the “on the one hand, on the other hand” journalistic approach that lends equal credence to scientific consensus and global warming denials. But even the bemoaners probably didn’t suspect the Times’ true bias.

  • LaHood: ‘This Is the End of Favoring Motorized Transportation’

    Following last week’s National Bike Summit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today a “sea change” in American transportation policy.

    Proclaiming the “end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” LaHood sent the following recommendations to state departments of transportation as well as local governments and groups:

    • Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.
    • Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.
    • Go beyond minimum design standards.
    • Collect data on walking and biking trips.
    • Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.
    • Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)
    • Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.

    Of course, these are just recommendations, and you won’t see LaHood scrap the Highway Trust Fund in favor of a cycling fund. But this announcement does represent a tangible manifestation of a new direction in transportation policy that’s making Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) look more mainstream by the day.

  • Global Warming Concerns Continue to Decline

    Americans continue to grow more skeptical of the threat of global warming, with a new Gallup poll showing that nearly half of all Americans believe the threat is exaggerated.

    According to the poll, 48 percent of the population considers the seriousness of global warming to be “generally exaggerated” — up from 41 percent last year and 35 percent in 2008, and by far the highest figure in the 13 years Gallup has posed the question.

    Likewise, an all-time high of 35 percent of respondents said the effects of global warming would not manifest during their lifetimes or would never occur. And while in 2008, 20 percent more Americans attributed global warming to human causes than to natural causes, this year that margin is down to 4 percent.

    How do we account for these rapid shifts in opinion? The most obvious explanation is that environmental concerns have grown much more politicized in recent years, and particularly in the past year. What was once a broad moral and scientific issue is now a centerpiece of the Democrats’ legislative agenda. The percentage of Americans expressing a belief in man-made climate change now correlates loosely with the level of support for the president, while the percentage expressing skepticism is in line with opposition to Democrats in Washington.

    If there’s any good news for environmental advocates here, then, it’s that concerns about global warming are unlikely to drop much further — at least as long as half the country backs President Obama and his legislative goals.

  • Report: House Drops Massa Investigation

    The Washington Post is reporting that the House Ethics Committee has closed its probe into former Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-N.Y.) alleged harassment of staffers.

    Update: Looks like Massa’s resignation might have been a shrewd move. From the Post:

    The committee concluded that Massa’s resignation put him outside the reach of any punishment the committee could dole out, and would render any findings of wrongdoing irrelevant. But the move appears likely to set up a political battle with House Republicans, who are already complaining in campaign ads that Congressional Democrats are unwilling to look too deeply into or punish the ethical transgressions of their own.

    Republicans signaled Wednesday morning, just before the House ethics committee was set to hold a meeting, that they wanted the probe to continue. Republicans sources said that the public deserved to know who in the House Democratic leadership knew about the swirling allegations and what they did upon learning that congressional staffers might be victims of harassment.

  • Blanche Lincoln’s Army of Lobbyist Disciples

    It’s been obvious for some time that Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) was unlikely to support comprehensive climate legislation. What wasn’t clear was the extent of her influence, which, according to a new report by the Sunlight Foundation, goes well beyond her single vote in the Senate:

    Six of Lincoln’s former staffers currently lobby for interests invested in influencing carbon capping legislation. These interests include oil & gas trade groups, agriculutural [sic] companies, the airplane industry and biofuel and bioenergy firms. […]

    The most influential of Lincoln’s former staffers is Kelly Bingel, a lobbyist for Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. Bingel is a former chief of staff to Lincoln and has been called “Sen. Lincoln’s alter ego.” Bingel’s clients include two incredibly powerful organizations opposed to carbon capping: the American Petroleum Institute (API), the lead trade group for the oil industry, and Koch Industries, one of the largest oil manufacturing, trading and investment companies in the country.

    One of the two owners of Koch Industries is David Koch, who has taken credit for sponsoring much of the Tea Party movement — whose adherents are no great supporters of climate legislation. Other former Lincoln staffers now lobby on behalf of the anti-cap-and-trade USA Rice Federation, the utility-advocacy Edison Electric Institute and the agricultural giant Monsanto. (The latter two have voiced support for climate legislation, but have sought to secure favorable terms for their industries.)

    Need further evidence of the massive Lincoln-lobbying-industrial complex? According to Sunlight, Lincoln’s the top recipient of campaign funds from the oil and gas industries and a variety of agricultural industries.

    Of course, given the entrenched history of close ties between lobbyists and the Hill, none of this should come as a surprise — but it does serve as a reminder of the powerful forces environmental advocates are up against.

  • Senate Primacy and the Meaninglessness of Waxman-Markey

    Over at Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard asks a good question: Was the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, debated ad nauseum and eventually passed by the House last June, just a waste of time? After all, the tripartisan Senate group now crafting similar legislation has decided to drop cap-and-trade — the central provision of the House measure — from the eventual Senate bill, which will be significantly less aggressive in combating climate change.

    The answer, I think, is something approaching “yes,” although probably for broader reasons than Kate implies in her piece. The real issue at hand is the fundamental weakness of the House vis-à-vis the Senate. Last spring, when we were all obsessing over every detail of the climate debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I think we didn’t quite appreciate just how subordinate the House had become to the Senate, for the simple reason that we hadn’t yet seen the health care sausage-making play out.

    Now it seems clear that if health care is to pass at all, House liberals will be forced to swallow their pride and pass a much less progressive Senate bill verbatim, even if there’s room for some smallish changes via reconciliation down the line. Likewise with climate legislation: For all the weeks and months of work that went into producing — and whipping the votes for — the Waxman-Markey bill, the liberals in the lower chamber will almost certainly have to bite the bullet and pass something resembling whatever eventually comes out of the Senate (if anything).

    One has to wonder when the House will lose its desire for vigorous debate over its bills — given that they’re likely to be supplanted by their Senate counterparts — and when we in the media will stop devoting so much ink (or so many pixels) to House debates that are likely to be rendered close to meaningless. I know I, for one, feel a bit silly for having spent so much time scrutinizing every compromise that threatened to undermine the efficacy of the Waxman-Markey bill, now that they all seem just about moot.

  • Weigel Patrols the Palin Beat on Countdown

    TWI’s David Weigel made an appearance on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, chatting with Lawrence O’Donnell about all things Palin: her hand scribblings, her religious pandering and her foray into the Canadian health care system. Check out the video after the jump:

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • Please Welcome Our New Editor, Mary Kane!

    I’m thrilled to announce that after nearly two months of heroic interim leadership by Holly Yeager, The Washington Independent has a new editor: Mary Kane, our beloved longtime economy reporter.

    Mary knows the ins and outs of TWI as well as anyone. She joined the team before the site even existed, back in late 2007, and with us she’s churned out countless gems of reporting, for which she won two Society of Professional Journalists awards. Previously, she covered finance for 11 years as a national correspondent for Newhouse News Service in Washington and freelanced for The Washington Post, Politico, Salon, and Crain’s Chicago Business. She’s also a two-time Excellence in Financial Journalism award winner. But most important, she has a keen journalistic sense that we’re confident will guide TWI to new heights in the coming months and years.

    It’s truly a frabjous day here at TWI. Please join me in congratulating Mary on her well-deserved new job.

  • Lieberman to Murkowski: ANWR Drilling Ain’t Gonna Happen

    As the three senators crafting climate legislation try to rally moderates behind their cause, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) could be a key player, since she’s shown some (but not much) willingness to play ball on climate issues. That’s why environmental advocates were so dismayed when she announced that drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was a “must-have” in order to win her support.

    But now Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of the Senate climate trio, is telling her he’s not going to cave on this issue. The Hill reports:

    “That is just not going to happen,” he told reporters in the Capitol. […]

    “We are looking at a lot of things, we are bending to bring people in, but that one is a no-no,” he said.

    In order to keep another member of the triumvirate, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), on board, any climate bill will have to include expanded nuclear power and offshore drilling. But on the ANWR issue, it seems, Lieberman is drawing the line.

  • Introducing TWI’s Senate Public Option Reconciliation Scoreboard

    Back in the heat of the public option debate last fall, TWI created a scoreboard to track each senator’s position on a government insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Ultimately, Senate Democrats determined that they just couldn’t muster the necessary 60 votes for a bill with a public option, and so they passed legislation without one.

    But now, the public option is back, and so is our scoreboard. This time, the debate centers on the possibility of passing a bill with a public option through budget reconciliation rules, which require only 50 votes for passage. The Senate Public Option Reconciliation Scoreboard lists every senator’s stance on both the public option itself and the reconciliation route to passage.

    Sure, the odds of a public option are still remote. But with a tremendous amount of uncertainty surrounding the health care debate in the House and Senate, the idea is gaining some ground.

    So be sure to stop by the scoreboard daily to get the latest updates on the status of the public option in the Senate.

  • Climate Trio Woos Senate Moderates

    They already have a liberal, a conservative and a wild card on board; now the tripartisan Senate group crafting climate legislation is trying to fill the spaces in between.

    Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are expected to soon release further details of their cap-and-trade-less climate bill, possibly as soon as tomorrow. And Kate Sheppard reports that moderates seem to be warming to the legislation.

    “There were some interesting things that were discussed in there and like everything else in the United States Senate, the devil is in the details,” [GOP Sen. George] Voinovich told reporters after the meeting. He also noted that without final language, it’s still hard to say whether he could endorse it. “There is more meat that has got to be put on the bones.” [Dem Sen. Max] Baucus called the new effort “refreshing,” while [Dem Sen. Debbie] Stabenow also showed enthusiasm.

    Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, who has supported an approach in which the majority of proceeds from the sale of carbon permits are returned to taxpayers in the form of a dividend, told Greenwire: “I think all of those things are very positive steps and give me the sense that people here in Congress are getting the message that the American people want us to be transparent about all things we do, including cap and trade.

    What’s noteworthy here is that the trio is aiming to line up 60 votes before introducing the legislation; Sheppard writes that “the anticipation among bill-watchers is that they won’t release the legislation until they’ve got 60 senators signed on.” This stands in pretty sharp contrast to the process up to this point. In the House, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) drafted a relatively aggressive bill that had no real chance of passing in its original form. Only after coal and farm interests whittled it down with a series of compromises and amendments was it able to squeak by.

    Likewise in the Senate: Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced an even more aggressive bill than the one passed by the House, knowing full well that it couldn’t get 60 votes. But unlike in the House, the compromise process never really got off the ground — hence the recent decision by Kerry to abandon that bill and work with Graham and Lieberman to start from scratch.

    This time around, they’re employing a markedly different strategy that will yield a markedly different bill. And the biggest difference could be that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill has a real shot at passing.

  • With All Those Media Appearances, Who’s Got Time to Vote?

    Not Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Her quest for celebrity, it seems, has trumped her duties as the elected representative of Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District.

    The Minnesota Independent reports:

    An analysis by the Minnesota Independent shows that Bachmann has missed more votes than any member of Minnesota’s congressional delegation in the 111th Congress — even after subtracting votes missed when Bachmann left to spend time with an ill family member. Twenty of the 47 remaining votes Bachmann missed occurred on days when the Sixth District Republican had media appearances scheduled.

  • Microsoft Distances Itself From Chamber of Commerce on Climate

    After months of stagnation and speculation that comprehensive climate action was dead for 2010, there’s some real momentum on the climate front. First came word that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) would be presenting a draft climate proposal to the Senate later this week. And today, Microsoft is reminding us that big business is behind environmental action, despite what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may say.

    From Microsoft’s environment blog:

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never spoken for nor done work on behalf of Microsoft regarding climate change legislation, and we have not participated in the Chamber’s climate initiatives. Microsoft has stated that climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate, worldwide attention and we are acting accordingly. We are pursuing strategies and taking actions that are consistent with a strong commitment to reducing our own impact as well as the impact of our products. In addition, we have adopted a broad policy statement on climate change that expresses support for government action to create market-based mechanisms to address climate change. And, we believe the greatest value Microsoft brings to the fight against climate change is our expertise on the role software and technology can play in reducing carbon emissions. To this end, Microsoft is working ranging from the Digital Energy Solutions Campaign to the World Wildlife Fund to the European Environmental Agency to advance public policies that promote the use of ICT solutions to advance energy efficiency, spur innovation and economic opportunity, and contribute to practical strategies for mitigating climate change.

    h/t Ben Smith

  • The Two Fatal Flaws of a Cap-less Climate Bill

    The tripartisan Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Senate climate squad made a splash this weekend with its decision to drop cap-and-trade from its (eventual) legislative proposal, instead imposing carbon controls on various polluting sectors of the economy. As Brad Plumer points out, this isn’t necessarily bad news for environmental advocates; treating the country as a monolithic source of pollution certainly overlooks the important distinctions between, say, electric utilities and gas-guzzling Hummers.

    As I see it, though, there are two main problems with this approach:

    First, we have to take for granted that any major energy and climate legislation in Congress will be hijacked by special interests. This happened with the House cap-and-trade bill, which saw huge numbers of pollution permits handed out for free to utilities, coal generators, oil refiners, etc. But under cap-and-trade, no matter how many permits you give away, no matter how much revenue the government loses that could have been spent on valuable clean energy investments, you still have a firm economy-wide emissions cap to show for it — a guarantee that the United States will emit over 80 percent less carbon in 2050 than it does now.

    With this proposal, though, it looks like we lose that. If electric utilities successfully lobby the Senate and get it to weaken their emissions target by 20 percent, and coal companies win a 15 percent reprieve, well then you’ve just taken a huge step back in the country’s commitment to fight global warming. It’s possible that when we actually see the text of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill, there will be some provision to prevent this kind of manipulation, but I’ve yet to see anything to that effect.

    Second, there’s the annoying truth that you can keep taking the teeth out of climate legislation, but you’re still not going to get many — if any — more Republicans or conservative Democrats to vote for it. Case in point from The Washington Post:

    Even some moderate Republicans, seen as possible supporters of a new climate bill, remain opposed to the idea of putting a price on carbon, which Lieberman still calls “sine qua non,” or an essential ingredient, of any such bill. Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), said the senator, who has opposed cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, could support pricing carbon “potentially at some point, but not at the moment.”

    Which is Congress-speak for: Sure, I’d consider voting for climate legislation, but not until after the midterm elections, when the Democratic majority will be sufficiently reduced to make passing a comprehensive climate bill impossible. At which point I’ll oppose it because “it simply doesn’t have the votes.”

  • Senate Passes Jobs Bill

    Two days after it overcame its chief procedural hurdle, a scaled-back jobs bill just passed the Senate by a vote of 70-28.

    The $15 billion bill must now be reconciled with a $154 billion jobs bill passed by the House in December.

    From The Washington Post:

    The measure passed 70 to 28, with 13 Republicans joining 57 Democrats in support of the package. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against it.

    “We’ve had so much gridlock,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), co-author of a key portion of the bill. Now, he said, “finally we have something” bipartisan to show the public.

    The legislation is the first element of what Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said will be a multipart “jobs agenda.” The measure includes a new program that would give companies a break from paying Social Security taxes on new employees for the remainder of 2010. It also carries a one-year extension of the Highway Trust Fund, an expansion of the Build America Bonds program and a provision to allow companies to write off equipment purchases.