The basic idea is that some Senators are reluctant to vote on the clean energy jobs bill — even in committee — without full economic modeling of the legislation.

Senators Graham, Gregg, Snowe and Collins have made the argument. Senator Inhofe has made it. Senator Voinovich and others have made it as well.

Daniel Weiss at the Center for American Progress explains why the argument is baseless:

Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations. In several cases, there was no full analysis before the bill was voted on by the entire Senate:

– Energy Policy Act of 2002 (H.R. 4): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after both committee passage and full Senate consideration.

– Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139): EIA analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

– Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 4/S. 1005): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after committee passage. Limited CBO analysis completed before full Senate consideration, EIA analysis after.

– Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 (S. 342): No analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

– Energy Policy Act of 2005 (S. 10): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– Energy Savings Act of 2007 (S. 1321): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191): EIA and EPA analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462): CBO analysis completed after committee passage.

Not that this will stop them, but it is nice to have such irrefutable evidence anyway.

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones:

What is important is both the public appearance by Graham and the emergence of Lieberman as the third wingman. In his remarks, Graham seemed to distance himself from the Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee that are boycotting the markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill.”If you can’t participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?” said Graham.

But later in the day he sided with EPW’s Republican rebels. In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Graham joined with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine—all seen as potential “yes” votes—to endorse the call for further EPA analysis. “As Senators interested in a bipartisan approach to addressing climate change and energy independence this Congress, we have a keen interest in ensuring that cost estimates, models, and other data critical to the legislative process be made available to members of Congress and the public in a timely manner,” they wrote. “We cannot support legislation without this information.”

Here is the letter, which was from Senators Graham, Collins, Snowe and Gregg: