Mike Sodrel talks a good game.
Here he is on the nation's dependence on foreign oil:
Poor planning and myopic perspectives have contributed to the current dilemma regarding America's energy consumption. I have supported efforts to create a comprehensive plan to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Well, that sounds pretty good. We need a comprehensive plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And with his ethanol-producing district bound to benefit when the U.S. decides to take the foreign oil issue seriously, you'd think he'd be a champion on the issue. According to his press release, the energy bill Sodrel supported will "decrease foreign energy imports and promote domestic sources."
But follow me below the fold to see how Sodrel has actually voted against a bipartisan approach to the nation's addiction to oil -- an approach supported by both of Indiana's Senators -- that would have benefitted the nation and his very own Indiana district.
Sodrel says he voted for an energy bill to decrease dependence on foreign oil, so let's take a look at that bill. The energy bill Sodrel voted for became law over a year ago and our need for foreign oil is only going up. The Bush Administration says we import
10 million barrels of crude per day now and the imports will only grow and grow. In a couple decades we'll need
13 and ½ million barrels of imported oil every single day!
Since Sodrel wants to talk about that energy bill, let's look at some of the details. Here's an interesting amendment that was debated on the House floor.
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment sought to require appropriate Federal departments and agencies, as identified by the President, to propose voluntary, regulatory, and other actions sufficient to reduce demand for oil in the United States by at least 1.0 million barrels per day from the projected demand for oil in 2013.
This sounds like something Sodrel could really get behind. If we want to reduce the need for imported oil, then maybe we should reduce our need for oil. We could boost ethanol production, or we could start making more energy efficient automobiles. Maybe we should do both.
Sodrel opposed this amendment. He voted "no"!. After all his talk about how he wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (see here, here, here, and here), he votes against an amendment to actually do it!
That's odd. Maybe it didn't matter, right? Maybe the Senate would never have passed the amendment, so this was a non-starter from the get go? Nope. The Senate passed a similar amendment and even the Republicans touted the "fuel-savings provision requiring the federal government devise a plan to save 1 million barrels of oil a day."
In fact, they didn't even bother to have a vote on the amendment in 2005, because in 2003, Sens. Landrieu and Specter offered the amendment and it passed 99-1. That's right. Both Sen. Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. Bayh (D-IN) supported the amendment. Arlen Specter even put out a press release on the amendment:
"It is a first step, but it is very important for the United States that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Simply stated, we use too much foreign oil. We are dependent upon the OPEC countries, especially Saudi Arabia, and it influences our foreign policy in ways which may well be undesirable."
What the heck is going on? Sodrel says he cares about the nation's dependence on foreign oil. He says he wants to promote ethanol, but when an amendment comes along to do just that, he votes against it.
Hmmm. What are we missing? Bipartisan consensus in the Senate, but Sodrel opposes.
Oh, of course, the Bush Administration told him to vote "no." After the Senate passed the bill, the White House weighed in:
the Administration strongly opposes the bill's requirement that the President implement measures to reduce U.S. petroleum demand by one-million barrels per day.
There you have it. The right thing to do for the country. Good enough for Sen. Lugar. Good enough for Sen. Bayh. It would make our country less dependent on foreign oil and it would promote Indiana's ethanol. But Bush "strongly objects" to reducing the nation's demand for oil, and Rubberstamp Sodrel is right there with him.
It gets even better. Now, if you remember School House Rock, you'll recall that when the Senate passes a bill and the House passes a bill and there is a difference between the two bills, those differences are worked out in a House-Senate conference committee. Once this energy bill headed to a conference committee, Sodrel put out a press release stating
"It is my hope that the Conference Committee will report a good bill back to us in short order so we can get this legislation to the President for his signature. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will set the framework for a long-term national energy strategy that will be vital to protecting and creating jobs in this country and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil."
Get that? He "hopes" that the conference committee completes a bill that will reduce "our dependence on foreign sources of oil." His "hope" is nice. His vote would have been better.
Sen. Cantwell and other Senators called on the conferees to keep the Senate's oil savings provision in the bill. But alas with the White House and the Rubberstamp House against them, you know how this ends. The environmentalists tell us what happened:
"During the conference, the Senate lost almost all of its green provisions, including the renewable electricity standard, oil savings amendment and the real global warming provision," said Curtis [of the National Environmental Trust].
Rep. Sodrel is the worst kind of Rubber Stamp Republican. He says the right things. Maybe in his heart, he even knows that the country needs a new direction. Maybe he even understands that the interest of his constituents aligns with good public policy. Maybe he knows that if the House had passed that amendment we'd be making a little progress today to address our addiction to foreign oil. Maybe ethanol producers would be doing that much better. But when George W. Bush says jump, its how high, isn't it? George Bush says vote against reducing dependence on foreign oil and he can't help himself. For Sodrel, it's Bush first, state and country later (if ever).
This is exactly why the Rubber Stamp Republicans must be replaced. This is what must change in Washington, DC.