House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) investigation of clean energy loan programs was undercut this week by a revelation, first reported by Bloomberg, that he had also requested money from the same program for companies in his district. A follow-up story by ThinkProgress found that an investor to the firm Issa had asked to subsidize had donated several times to Issa, including a check just shortly before Issa sent his letter to Secretary Chu.

Today on the Senate floor, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) mocked Issa’s hypocrisy. She carried with her copies of the letters signed by Issa, as well as other letters by Republicans asking for money for the clean energy program they had just voted to cut, and read them into the Congressional Record:

LANDRIEU: He’s a member from California, he’s a very powerful member of the House. I’m going to read his whole letter. [...] And maybe the press even writes, ‘Darrell Issa, the Republican leader, is promoting manufacturing in California.’ Because this is what he says in his district. And this is the letter he sends to the Secretary. But when he’s in the floor of the House last night, he voted to gut this program. That’s what this debate is about!

Watch it:

Earlier this week, Republicans tried to make hay out of the Solyndra controversy by taking an axe to clean energy programs. Landrieu made short work out of the GOP’s shameful gimmick.

Landrieu continued tearing into Republican hypocrisy. She noted that the cuts were purely political because the supposed offsets for FEMA only required $175 million, not $1 billion. She then continued to read Republican letters asking for clean energy loan cash, including yet another one signed by Issa (asking for money for battery-maker Quallion LLC):

LANDRIEU: I’m going to do this all week, so I hope the press gets ready to ask these Republican leaders how could you possibly have the gall to hold press opportunities in your district promising people that you’re helping them to create jobs and then come back to Washington and cut the rug out from under their feet with a bogus excuse that you have to come up with a billion dollars [...] when the real need for FEMA in 2011 is $175 million. But under the guise of having to provide a billion dollars, they want to gut this program that’s creating jobs and they themselves have asked for these loans to be made in their district. [...]

Several members, and I am going to submit their names to the record [...] In addition — this is the killer, this is the killer — in addition Quallion think that this funding will create more than two thousand three hundred new and long-term jobs nationwide. And this is the program that Representative Cantor decided to use as an offset so he could fool the American people.

In a startling act of fealty to polluter interests, several senators are fighting scientifically guided smog limits that would save thousands of lives a year. Under the guidance of administrator Lisa Jackson, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working to clean up one of George W. Bush’s most blatant acts of ignoring science and disregarding the law, when he personally overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee for an ozone limit no higher than 70 ppb, setting instead an arbitrary and capricious standard of 75 ppb. Jackson intends to instead follow the law by setting a 60-70 ppb standard. However, a group of Democratic and Republican senators led by retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) are trying to preserve Bush’s toxic legacy on behalf of the coal and oil industries in their states, complaining to Jackson that her plan “will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families”:

We believe that changing the rules at this time will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families and will compound the hardship that many are now facing in these difficult economic times.

The pro-smog letter was also signed by Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO) and David Vitter (R-LA).

Remarkably, the senators do not seem cognizant of Bush’s well-reported act of malfeasance, complaining that “the Agency has not presented new data or evidence to justify its course of action”:

Instead, outside of the regular five-year review process, EPA is choosing to interpret the same basic body of information that existed in 2008 and reach a different conclusion. . .

Given the absence of new or different scientific data, EPA should maintain the current ozone standards, which EPA finalized only two years ago and concluded were adequately protective of public health and welfare with an adequate of safety [sic].

Actually the conclusion EPA staff and scientists drew in 2008, based on the scientific evidence that “ozone has a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease and resulting premature deaths,” was that a standard no higher than 70 ppb was needed. The agency calculated that a standard of 65 ppb “would avoid 3,000 to 9,200 deaths annually,” two to three times more than a 75 ppb standard. The difference is that George W. Bush is no longer the decider.

The senators also claim that the previous smog standards harmed the economy:

We note that many states are only recently coming into attainment with the 1997, 0.084 ppm ozone standard. Attaining that standard required costly mandates on businesses, which greatly restricted the ability of local communities to grow their economies. . .

While we believe we can and should continue to improve our environment, we have become increasingly concerned that the Agency’s environmental policies are being advanced to the detriment of the people they are intended to protect. That is, these policies are impacting our standard of living by drastically increasing energy costs and decreasing the ability of our states to create jobs, foster entrepreneurship, and give manufacturers the ability to compete in the global marketplace.

The claim that attainment with the 1997 standard “greatly restricted the ability of local communities to grow their economies” is without evidence. In fact, the only noticeable effect of the 1997 standards on the economy was to dramatically cut the regulated pollution, making millions of children healthier, even as the economy steadily grew, as this EPA chart shows:

Finally, the senators claim — again without evidence — that “non-attainment” penalties under the Clean Air Act “undermine the economic viability of communities within our states.” In fact, “there is no clear evidence that non-attainment designations or progress in addressing air quality prevent areas from growing,” EPA officials informed the Wonk Room. Areas such as Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and many others have been non-attainment for years and have had very strong growth rates. The EPA tells the Wonk Room:

We see no significant differences in the trend of employment, wages and number of establishments between attainment and non-attainment areas.

There is clear evidence, however, that this effort to ensure that more children have asthma attacks comes on behalf of coal and oil corporations in the senators’ states. Peabody Energy, the “world’s leading coal company,” is based in Missouri and has mines in Indiana, and is a top campaign contributor to McCaskill, Bond, Lugar and Bayh. Murray Energy, the “largest privately owned coal company in America,” is based in Voinovich‘s state. Landrieu and Vitter have collected a combined $1.5 million from the pollution industry, whose refineries and power plants keep killing children and keep sending these senators back to Washington.

The Wonk Room is blogging and tweeting live from the Gulf Coast.

Like a problem gambler, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is doubling down her support for the oil industry as her state is threatened by what could become the worst oil disaster in history. Landrieu is placing a career-threatening bet that the damage from the undersea oil gusher to Louisiana will be limited, accusing people concerned by the threat of this ever-growing spill of “hysteria.” Questioned this morning about her campaign contributions from BP and other oil companies, Landrieu said, “I am not a handmaiden to the oil industry,” but then said the United States has to increase its dependence on drilling for oil:

I am not a handmaiden to the oil industry but I will tell you this: This country uses 20 million barrels of oil a day. We produce here in the United States less than half. So our choice is either to increase, you know, our reliance on “friends,” you know, and I say that in quotes, like Venezuela, Cuba and other places to get our oil or learn how to drill it safely here. Again, you’ve got to the put this accident in perspective. The last thing we need to do is shut this oil and gas industry down.

Watch it:

Landrieu is offering Americans a false choice. Instead of getting oil from Venezuela (the United States does not, in fact, import oil from Cuba) or increasing offshore drilling, we can consume less petroleum. Sweden plans to cut its oil use by 40 to 50 percent by 2020, using more fuel-efficient cars and electric vehicles, smart growth, electrified rail systems, biofuels, and other clean-energy policies. Cutting American dependence on oil won’t just reduce the risks of catastrophes in the Gulf Coast and weaken our enemies, but also help the economy grow faster with green jobs.