I found this article and it states that the bill should pass the house, where it has bipartisan support. So the articles following are of this bill. It was proposed in two congress' and has been in committee since.
Courtesy of Lawrence MacDonald and DC Tripwire
Bottom Line: The NAT GAS Act is expected to easily pass the House,
where it has broad support from Members on both sides of the aisle.
Challenges remain before the bill becomes law, however, the most
significant of which is the determination of an acceptable pay-for, i.e.
revenue raiser or spending cut to offset the tax subsidies provided in
the bill. But with continued high gasoline prices and the American
public demanding action, it may be that the time is finally right to
send this legislation to the President’s desk. While its path through
the House looks easy though, its prospects in the Senate are murkier, as
it has been stymied in the Senate once before. Thus, companies which
benefit from the tax benefits that would be derived form the NAT GAS Act
— such as makers of fleet-based natural gas vehicles — could continue
to ride a wave of high expectations as the bill winds its way through
the House, but such expectations could run into a wall in the Senate.
· Last week, Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK), Dan Boren (D-OK), Kevin
Brady (R-TX), and John Larson (D-CT) introduced H.R. 1380, the New
Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of
2011, in the House.
· The bill seeks to promote natural gas as a transportation fuel by
providing expanded tax incentives for the purchase and production of
natural gas vehicles (NGVs) and the installation of natural gas
refueling infrastructure. It also includes a section to directing
funding at the Department of Energy for research and development to
improve NGV performance and efficiency and to promote NVGs for their
petroleum reductions and greenhouse gas reductions.
· The NAT GAS Act already has 133 bipartisan cosponsors, ranging from
the most conservative to the most liberal, and both President Obama and
Speaker Boehner have expressed support for legislation promoting NGVs.
· The House bill was referred to three committees – Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Science.
o These multiple committee referrals could, in theory, slow the bill’s movement through the House.
o Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), however, is a member of
the House Natural Gas Caucus and is expected to support the bill.
Additionally, Rep. Kevin Brady, a lead cosponsor of the legislation, is a
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
o The road through the Energy and Commerce Committee, where Chairman
Fred Upton (R-MI) has previously expressed concern about passing
legislation to promote one source of energy over another, may be a bit
rockier. In addition to overcoming any speed bumps with the Chairman,
Democratic Members could attempt to attach any number of “poison pill”
amendments to the bill in committee, including controversial amendments
regarding hydraulic fracturing.
o But because the bill is supported by Speaker Boehner, and because
Rep. Sullivan is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, these
obstacles are expected to be overcome.
· Champions of the bill believe that because it is supported by both
Republican and Democratic Leadership (Rep. Larson is Chairman of the
House Democratic Caucus), the legislation will move quickly through the
House.
· Despite its multiple committee referrals and possible challenges in
the Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill is, in fact, likely to pass
the House easily.
· There is even talk that the bill may be considered under
“suspension of the rules,” a process typically used in the House on
noncontroversial measures. This procedure limits debate to 40 minutes,
permits no floor amendments, and requires the support two-thirds of
Members present and voting for passage.
Challenges Ahead
· Although there is not yet an official CBO score for the NAT GAS
Act, back of the envelope estimates suggest that it will cost
approximately $3.5 billion.
· According to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which became law
early last year, bills reducing revenues must be fully offset by cuts in
mandatory programs or by revenue increases.
· Although the House Rules under the Republican leadership do not
require tax cuts to be paid for, such a requirement still exists in the
Senate and remains law of the land.
· At this point, the bill passed by the House is not expected to have a pay-for.
· This will present a challenge in the Senate, where companion
legislation is expected to be introduced in the weeks ahead by Senators
Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Orin Hatch (R-NJ). (The bill is also supported
by Majority Leader Harry Reid.)
· In the last Congress, disagreement over the pay-for prevented
similar legislation from going anywhere in the Senate, and that issue
could easily rear its head again, grinding the bill’s movement to a
halt.
· In addition to the challenge of finding an acceptable pay-for, it
remains uncertain if the NAT GAS Act would move on its own in the Senate
or if would be included in a more comprehensive energy package, which
would significantly slow the process and make passage more complicated.
Foreign suppliers of energy have long entrenched themselves in the energy market, since the beginning of the 20th century. Oil was cheap and plentiful, so much so that it is available at every pump, all across America. Now this foreign oil is becoming exceedingly expensive, with hard pressed Americans being forced to pay $4-$5 gasoline.
This is why I think the Nat Gas Act is the right thing to support. You are not being asked to support unfair legislation that favors one energy commodity over another; you are in fact being asked to level the energy playing field, to help a local source to supply cheaper, cleaner energy to cash-strapped and environmentally concerned Americans.
Call this affirmative energy action.
Julian Andrew Wong
Singapore