Our Representatives in Congress have many fine solutions. But Dems are blocking votes on every bill the GOP proposes!

You never know what you might learn watching C-Span that you’re never going to learn if you watch the liberal news media.

For instance, have any readers seen reporting that describes the steps Republicans have proposed to deal with high energy prices? Probably not.

So, when I saw Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK)give a speech Tuesday evening on the House Floor describing GOP plans to address the issue, I decided I’d better pass it along as I doubt too many people would have heard about it.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
Congressional Record
June 10, 2008

But let me talk a little if I can about what the current state of play is in energy prices. Today as you have had up on your sign, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline is $4.04. That is something I never thought I would live to see, and frankly, no American should have ever lived to see. You can now buy a barrel of light sweet crude for July delivery at $131.31, a nice round number, nice even alliterative number. Currently in my State, Oklahoma’s price at the pump, and we are producers, in some ways we will we feel it even worse because we have been producing for over 100 years much more than we consume and exporting it to the rest of the country. And we are delighted to do that. But it is pretty tough when people in Oklahoma, a producing State that sacrificed, that frankly are delighted to have exploration and production, but they are paying $3.83 a gallon.

In January of 2007 when this majority, this Democrat majority took office, the price per gallon was $2.08 a gallon. That is a rise of $1.75, an increase of over 80 percent.

The country as a whole has experienced very much the same thing. The average price since the Democratic majority has come into power has gone up $1.67, an increase of 71 percent.

Now, that is not what our friends on the other side of the aisle expected to happen at all. As a matter of fact, let me read you a few quotes of what they told America as they came into the majority our energy future would be.

Our distinguished Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, said on April 18, 2006, “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing gas prices.” She said a few days later, “The Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices.”

Our distinguished Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on the 4th of April, 2005, “Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.” I would love to “struggle” to pay $2.08 a gallon. It would be a nice fight to have.

Our good friend and distinguished whip of the majority party, JIM CLYBURN, said, “House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising prices.” That is on the 26th of July, 2006. If this is the plan, we want them to go back to the drawing board and reconsider where they are at.

Four times since they have taken the majority they have voted to increase energy taxes; to increase energy taxes. Now, even people that don’t like the energy industry can usually say, well, gosh, if you increase the tax, won’t they pass that along to us in the price? It is an incredible record.

Now, every single energy bill the majority wants to reach the floor has reached the floor. Most of them have passed this body. Some of them have gone all the way to the President and been signed. As I recall, I don’t remember anybody who actually vetoed any energy legislation that has actually reached the President’s desk. So what we are seeing really is the product of the majority’s legislative agenda.

What haven’t they let come to the floor? What commonsense solutions that most Americans support haven’t come to the floor? I am just going to list a few of them, because, as my colleague knows, there are many of them.

Our colleague from Texas, MAC THORNBERRY, has a wonderful bill, the No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, that literally covers the gambit of things we ought to be doing. Not just oil and gas, but nuclear, solar and wind. It incentivizes production. That is the lesson that our friends on the other side have forgotten, that supply is really important to cost. They simply seem to have no conception of that.

There is a wonderful bill by Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, H.R. 2279, that will expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed military installations in the United States. These are installations that have been set aside. They are safe. They are secure. Why in the world wouldn’t we want to refine the product? If we have to import it, we at least ought to get the value-added portion of refining it. It is a crime that we should ever import a refined product.

Our good friend Mr. Blunt, H.R. 2493, has legislation that removes the fuel blend requirements and government mandates that contribute to unaffordable gas prices. We shouldn’t have dozens and dozens of blends of gasoline. A few is enough.

Our good friend Mrs. Myrick has H.R. 6108, Outer Continental Shelf Exploration, which grants coastal states the authority to grant exploration up to 100 miles from their coastlines and allows States to share in that revenue. A commonsense solution.

None of this legislation, and dozens more, have been allowed to come to the floor. My friends on the other side love to blame Republicans, President Bush and the energy industry for these kinds of problems.

I just want to conclude quickly with a story. I do represent a district that is one of the top 20 energy producers in the United States, so we are more than doing our part. I convened about a year ago, actually before this extraordinary rise in prices, a group of independent energy people that have spent a lifetime trying to provide energy to this country.

I asked them, “Give me your suggestions. What can we do to increase the supply and stabilize and hopefully lower the price of a gallon of gasoline or heating fuel or electricity?” They thought, and they had a lot of great solutions.

They said, “Let’s go drill in ANWR, in Alaska. That would be a wonderful thing.” By the way, my good friend Mr. Young has a superb piece of legislation on that, H.R. 6107, that would actually allow us to drill there and invest some of the severance revenue in alternative energy supplies so we could both meet an immediate need and start looking for alternatives.

But they suggested that. I said, “Well, you know, I am for that. I voted for that. The Republican majority passed it four times in the House and couldn’t get it through the Senate because of Democratic obstruction, so we probably can’t get it done.”

Then they said, “Let’s do more exploration and production offshore. We have seen Katrina. That has worked well in terms of no spillage. We know we had 25 percent of our supply in the Gulf of Mexico. We could do more.” I said, “Well, I am for that, but we can’t do that either.”

Then they asked about additional refining capacity, and they asked about expedited permitting on non-park Federal lands. They just went through a litany of things. Alternative energy. Each one I would say yes, I am for that, but we can’t get that through, particularly a Democratic Congress.

Finally at the end of this in frustration, one of my good friends said, “Well, why don’t you go back and ask those other Members of Congress who are opposing these measures just how rich they want foreign countries to be? Just how much they want to pay the people overseas that we are importing this petroleum from, or this gas, when we could actually do the production here? Because they are exporting thousands of jobs, billions of dollars, and they are jeopardizing our security.”

Then the guy added in fairness, he said, “By the way, we are all here giving you suggestions about how to lower the price of the product that we produce.”

We have had a shameful exercise, in my opinion, in the last several days, particularly on the Senate side, where people that work to solve America’s energy problems are brought in and interrogated as if they are the source of the problems, and the only frankly justification for that is the high prices. But when those people respond, they say, “If you would just do the things we have asked you to do year after year after year, we could solve this problem.”

Democrats have been very successful politically by groaning about high gas prices and the impact that has on all Americans, particularly the poor and middle class. Yet, they NEVER take any responsibility for the very mess THEY have created.

It’s time to tell the truth to the American people over and over and over again. Tell the truth as often as Dems continue to tell the big lie that big oil or the Republicans are to blame for high gas prices.

Our guys in Congress are doing their part to get the message out. We must do our part too!

Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am and is filed under Economy, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. Republicans Fight Back on Gas Prices | The Hinge Of Fate
  2. Thor’s Hall | The Politics of Energy
  3. Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 06/11/08
  4. How to lower gas prices??? | Grizzly Groundswell

36 comments so far

Scott Malensek
 1Reply to this comment  

That’s crazy tawk! I just saw Democrats on MSNBC telling us that it’s Republicans blocking their bills; that the way to lower gas prices is to raise taxes on gasoline providers (who in turn would never raise the price of gas to cover the new tax expense).

Curious, if President Obama is elected, and Democrats get veto proof majority in Congress, will my house get complimentary solar panels, geothermal heating, and 2 electric cars? Will I at least be able to get a tax credit covering the expense if I buy all that (yeah, like the leaves on my trees are greenbacks)? Shy of that….looks like we’re stuck w high gas prices and Democrat obstructionists.

June 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am
 2Reply to this comment  

The DemocRats are intent on seeing this country fail and they’re doing everything they can to achieve it.

DemocRats won’t be happy until we’re all paying $8/gal, just like they do in Europe (their Utopia).

June 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
 3Reply to this comment  

Give it to theDemocrats to ntunderstand Economics 101. Supply / Demand. If you have a bigger demand and not enough supply, prices go up, and taxing BIG OIL will do nothing for supply and will not cut demand enough to make a dent. Econimics 101. I think I learned this is grade school and the Democrats do not understand it.

June 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Jason
 4Reply to this comment  

“Yet, they NEVER take any responsibility for the very mess THEY have created.”

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that anybody in Congress, as an individual, a group or a whole, has enough power to significantly affect the global economic forces that determine (to a large degree) gas prices.

Regarding ANWR, though - are you aware that there is only a six-month supply (3.2 billion barrels of oil) there, and it would take about 40 years before we got it all out? That’s 80 million barrels per year. The US currently uses that much oil in 4 days time. It’s hardly a drop in the bucket.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

We need another solution, and that is to find alternatives to oil.

You have a good point about a windfall oil company tax - it does seem that the oil companies would just pass along the costs. But there is a caveat in that bill, from what I understand - it only taxes profits if they aren’t re-invested in alternative energy research. It’s a way to force oil companies to re-invest (not necessarily the best way to go about it, in my opinion). Don’t forget, folks, we’re going to see substantial decreases in world oil production in the next few decades, and eventually we’re going to run out. The time to find a solution is now. Among the bills mentioned above, the only one that seems to even remotely consider that is the “No More Excuses Energy Act”.

June 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
 5Reply to this comment  

Jason: Your information is so totally WRONG I hardly know where to begin.

1. Democrats have passed and President Bush has signed every energy bill that Congress, run by DEMOCRATS has passed. How is it disingenous to suggest that they shouldn’t be blamed for not providing for ONE OUNCE of new oil in the bills they have passed?

2. On ANWR, you are not just WRONG, but you MUST be deliberately so. Have you bothered to read the Energy Administration and USGS projections that show ANWR producing approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf

And these projections over the last 7 years have gone UP, not down. At least 10 billion barrels of oil and quite possibly 18 billion.

1 million barrels of oil from ANWR PER DAY translates into 27 million gallons of gasoline available to American consumers PER DAY.

It’s time that willful disinformation and environmental scaremongering was seen for what it is: A HUGE LIE!

June 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Scott Malensek
 6Reply to this comment  

“No More Excuses Energy Act”. Is that the one that was gonna raise gas prices by 53 cents a gallon?

June 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
 7Reply to this comment  

Scott: Aren’t you thinking of Warner-Lieberman?

June 11th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
suek
 8Reply to this comment  

On the topic of oil - this is a worthwhile article to read.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html

June 11th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Scott Malensek
 9Reply to this comment  

That’s it Mike. Thanks
:)

June 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Jason
 10Reply to this comment  

Mike,

1) Either side can write all the laws they want, nothing is going to fix the fact that developing nations are dramatically increasing the global demand for oil, causing a rise in prices.

2) ANWR, as I said, is a drop in the bucket. Did you see the part in PDF you link to that said foreign oil dependence would be reduced from 70% to 66%. That’s hardly significant. Assuming a direct correlation, a 4% would cause a 4% drop in gas prices - about $.16 a gallon. And that’s not until ANWR reaches peak production, after 2015. By that time, how much will the global demand for oil have changed? How much will we be paying per gallon? $.16 is nothing. We need real solutions.

Do you have any references that point to revisions to the ANWR projections in the 2004 document?

June 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
 11Reply to this comment  

Jason, per ANWR.org…’s statement, it would be 15 years or more before gas and oil would be flowing.

The consensus of the geologic community is that the Coastal Plain of ANWR represents the highest petroleum potential onshore area yet to be explored in North America. This potential is believed to be on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and may rival that of the Prudhoe Bayfield. Should leasing be permitted and subsequent commercial discoveries be made, it will be an estimated 15 years or more before oil and gas production from ANWR reaches market.

They do not present that ANWR, as the sole added supply, is the answer. However it’s contribution to the increasing needs and diminishing supply is considerable.

The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America’s best possibility for the discovery of another giant “Prudhoe Bay-sized” oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

ANWR should not be the only area opened to drilling, nor drilling the only option addressed. No one’s against alternatives. But I am against trying to solve the problem *only* with alternatives which are inadequate, and no where near ready to handle the load we need.

Our drilling technology and speed has improved remarkably. And time is only whizzing by each day we do nothing to address the obvious. We need to do it all… drill, oil, shale, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro. It is only with a combination of them all we can do it.

And it’s most especially annoying that China can drill off of Key West, and we can’t. Huh??

June 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
 12Reply to this comment  

Do not forget about the largest oil reserve in thw world under Montana to Colorado. I do not have the driect link at hand, but the largest reserve of oil is under the United States and Canada. Just a little more than a drop in the bucket. And the push for alternative energy takes years, we can not just force people to use it. That is not the way America works, or at needs to be before the liberals took over it. Freedom, liberty and induividualism is what made this country great and we are loosing it day by day. The government is too big and needs to be made smaller and lesser in scope of our daily lives. We do not nee the Nannay state of the EU or should I sat EUSSR. They act more likecommunist Russia than a democratic state.

A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.—Lord Thomas MacCauley

June 11th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
 13Reply to this comment  

The DemocRats have done it again!

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he’ll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

“For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves,” Peterson said, according to USA Today. “With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves.”

Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.

According to Peterson’s office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

Good job, traitors!

June 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 14Reply to this comment  

I’m glad to see the Republicans moving on this.

Let’s get the Dims on record.

The American people have had just about enough of the pump prices and this type of publicity and exposure will bring things out into the light.

June 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 15Reply to this comment  

The Dims voted it down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G0qesvVD1Q&feature=related

June 11th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
 16Reply to this comment  

Imagine that. They voted down a bill that would help American tax payers. Never would have thought that could happen

June 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
 17Reply to this comment  

Jason’s solution is NO solution. His idea is identical to the socialists who would strangle the U.S. economy, perhaps forever, by cutting off the energy we need to continue positive economic growth in this country.

Of course when that happens, the socialists can leap forward with their next round of destructive dependence on government welfare which will sap the remaining wealth in this country until we nothing more than a second rate economic and military power.

Then of course the Chinese will dictate to us surrender terms which the socialists will happily sign and the once great American experiment in liberty will be dead.

Jason radically understated the amount of oil available in ANWR. The MINIMUM is three times higher than the 3.2 billion barrels he described.

It’s clear he is working on an agenda that does not have either energy independence or the health of the American economy and good of our people as it’s goal.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!

Full size image here.

Note: the April 2008 estimate is 6.5 BILLION barrels of oil higher than the October 2007 estimate (which is here).

There’s plenty of oil right here in the U.S. It’s not a “drop in the bucket” but enough to fuel the United States for YEARS without foreign imports outside of North America as we transition to alternatives.

The only thing standing in the way of that alternative future are the Democrats and people like Jason.

June 11th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 18Reply to this comment  

Yep,

They want to keep on doing things the same way they’ve always done things and expect that they will get different results.

In the meantime other countries are not only drilling and shipping away the oil that is right off of our shores they are also investing deeply in alternative energy options such as liquified natural gas and coal to oil.

In addition, these foreign oil platforms are slant drilling and actually taking the oil that rightfully belongs to us.

Dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel is going to break the back of this country.

We are the only country in the history of the world which has refused to take advantage of our own natural resources.

June 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
 19Reply to this comment  

Aye: You may recall that Curt posted these graphics a while back:

China is drilling about 50 miles from Key West. And do we think the Chinese have the same standards for eco safety that we do?

June 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
SoCal Chris
 20Reply to this comment  

Three cheers to Senators Corker and Alexander of Tennessee!! I came across this article yesterday.
(the blogs at the end of the article I don’t agree with at all, but such is the opposition to positive solutions…tiresome, isn’t it?)

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=60739

June 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
 21Reply to this comment  

SoCal:

I like the idea of a Manhattan Project to develop a 21st Century energy solution. I’ve said the same thing about a dozen times. And we could pay for it all with the royalties and taxes we would collect from drilling for our OWN OIL instead of shipping the money to the Arabs.

But our friends like Jason here aren’t going to let us drill for oil and would strangle the economy that we need firing on all cylinders if we ever hope to develop a realistic alternative.

June 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Jason
 22Reply to this comment  

I’m all for the health of the American economy and energy independence. I think that relying on oil is short-sighted, and we need to pour more resources into the transition to alternatives, and less into drilling for dinosaur sludge.

So I was wrong about the amount of oil in ANWR. A drop in the bucket versus 3 drops in the bucket. It’s not going to make much difference in the price of gas, or significantly lead us toward energy independence.

June 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am
 23Reply to this comment  

10-16 billion barrels of oil is three drops in the bucket?

More like a TWO YEAR supply of ALL the oil America needs. But if you won’t let us drill there, and you won’t let us drill off the coasts and you won’t let us process the oil shale then we are NEVER going to be energy independent and our economy will suffer.

America has enough oil RIGHT HERE to be energy independent, with just a little help now and then from Canada.

June 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
SoCal Chris
 24Reply to this comment  

Jason, I don’t think 1 million barrels of crude oil a day is 3 drops in the bucket. It makes sense when you look at the effectiveness of supply and demand. And, as was stated, this kind of relief, as well as in other areas in the country where we could drill safely, would give us more elbow room to work on alternative technologies.

I have to say something regarding the environmentalists and ANWAR. I know someone who grew up in Alaska, and personally saw the changes building the pipeline brought. No changes! I’m sure the environmentalists extreme were complaining about the wildlife and the land then, too. My friend said that the animals–adapted!! Can you believe it??? He witnessed the various critters walking about freely, no problems.

Obviously, the pipeline is not the same as oil drilling…but it’s my understanding that it can be done safely, with minimal effects on the surrounding environment.

June 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Jason
 25Reply to this comment  

Thanks for the intelligent and civil discourse, Chris.

1 million barrels a day is 1/20 of our current usage. In 2015, are we still going to be using that much? Increased population might balanced dropping consumption (thanks to higher prices), so maybe. I just don’t see a 5% increase in oil supply as that significant. How much do you think that will affect prices?

But, maybe every little bit helps. If drilling really could be done safely, maybe there isn’t any reason to oppose it. But I still wonder, are the operations privately funded? Who gets the profits? Who really benefits?

June 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
 26Reply to this comment  

Yes they would be privately funded. The stock holders would profit. And everyone benefits because of lower gas prices,and lower food prices and everything else will be lower in price. Umm that is economics 101. So you think the government should drill and get the profits??? What would the benfit of that be????

June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
 27Reply to this comment  

Jason: There is no sound environmental reason not to drill for oil in ANWR, off the coasts or on the land in the U.S.

You might recall that Hurricane Katrina destroyed dozens of oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Did you see any photographs of oil soaked beaches on the nightly news?

How many times do I have to say this? There is PLENTY of oil right here. ANWR is just one large pool of it that we know we can get at quickly. There are many more.

And the corporations which put up the money to drill and take the financial risks will also reap the financial reward. Oil companies currently make less % profit than nearly every other large American industry.

And who benefits from oil exploration right here in the U.S.? The American consumer and the federal government which would collect a bonanza of new tax revenue to fund all those alternative development programs.

The Caribou at Prudhoe Bay (on the North Slope to the west of ANWR). The Caribou love it there. And note that ANWR oil installations would be a fraction of this size. Technology has come a long way since this station was built.

And here are the Three Bears out for a stroll on top of the nice warm oil pipeline at Prudhoe. They’re probably on their way to eat some of the Caribou.

And here are some of the happy native residents of Kaktovik, which lies within the ANWR drilling area. Opinion polls consistently show locals overwhelmingly support drilling as it means jobs, money for schools and community development. Funny how liberals in the lower 48 states would deny them the same opportunity that lower staters enjoy.

June 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
SoCal Chris
 28Reply to this comment  

LOL, Mike!!!! A picture is definitely worth a thousand words!! Thanks!!

June 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Jason
 29Reply to this comment  

No, I don’t think the government should drill or get the profits.

June 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
 30Reply to this comment  

Then why ask who gets them. If a company drills they get a profit, then that goes into the stocks and the stock holders, you, me anyone with a retirement fund or a401k get the dividends.

June 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Jason
 31Reply to this comment  

You make a compelling argument, Mike. I still think you should quantify “PLENTY”… nobody seems to be addressing the 1/20th increase in oil supply that ANWR will bring. But you’re right, the locals will benefit, and the environmental impact may be minimal.

June 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
 32Reply to this comment  

You want to know what “PLENTY” is Jason?

I’ve shown this chart before but apparently you haven’t bothered to look at it:

That doesn’t even take into account the oil shales in the Rockies which are estimated to be many times greater than all the current fields shown here.

We could develop these fields as we transition away from foreign oil and have enough to power the entire country as we implement alternatives.

June 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam

If you find your posts being held for moderation, sign up at OpenID and login using that. This will avoid moderation.