Harry Reid to Help Frist Push Offshore Drilling Through Lame Duck Congress
Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:47:57 AM PDT
CQ is subscription, but here is the quote:
"Lame Duck Preview: Lame-Duck Session Could Be Short: Appropriations, Tax Cuts Top List," Nov. 9, 2006, p. 14.
"Reid says he hopes to help Frist pass several other measures by the end of the year, including...legislation to authorize drilling south of the Florida Panhandle in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (S 3711)"
How bad is the suck? The House bill transfers more than $100 billion in existing drilling royalties from the federal Treasury to the oil-rich states along the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal states that want to retain the drilling ban would be required to periodically return to their legislatures and governorsbeg for approval for the exemption.
Not to mention the increased nurturing of oil company profiteering out of the national treasury and drivers' pockets. The House measure does nothing to lower oil prices at the pump, prices which are largely set by the world oil market.
Worst of all are the environmental damage, and the lack of any provision or legislation planning a transition to renewable energy sources.
In June, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, R- Md, said of the House Bill
. .coastal states that want to retain the drilling ban would be required to periodically win approval for the exemption from their legislatures and governors.
And, of course, the measure would simply fatten the profits of oil companies while doing nothing to lower pump prices, which are largely set by the world market.
Congressional Record
June 29, 2006
[Page: H4830]
The Baltimore Sun recognized the scam, editorializing in July,
Backers of the legislation aren't interested in such common sense, though. In fact, the measure was so outrageously constructed it seemed designed mostly to allow lawmakers to go home for July 4 claiming they did something about gasoline prices.
Of perhaps greatest concern in Maryland is the prospect of environmental damage to Ocean City and Assateague Island beaches or to the Chesapeake Bay - particularly if Virginia were to opt for drilling, as expected.
The
Washington Post, however, flogged the legislation, declaring the ban on offshore drilling outdated.
An Outdated Ban - Washington Post Editorial
It's time to allow more offshore drilling.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; A24
FOR THE PAST quarter of a century, the federal government has banned oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters. Efforts to relax the ban have been repelled on environmental grounds, but it is time to revisit this policy. Canada and Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have allowed offshore drilling for years and do not regret it. Offshore oil rigs in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the exceptions to the ban imposed by Congress, endured Hurricane Katrina without spills. The industry's safety record is impressive, and it's even possible that the drilling ban increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier. Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified.
The economic benefit of that drilling would be especially pronounced if it were aimed at natural gas extraction. Despite all the rhetoric about energy independence, it doesn't make much difference whether the United States gets its oil from its own coastal waters or whether it buys it on world markets. There is one global price for oil; producing more from U.S. waters will bring down that global price, benefiting all consuming countries rather than just U.S. consumers. But natural gas is traded globally only in small quantities, in liquefied form; nearly all of the gas consumed in the United States is produced domestically or in Canada. So producing more natural gas in U.S. coastal waters would bring down U.S. natural gas prices rather than world prices. Because natural gas is much cleaner than its main alternative, coal, this would have environmental as well as economic benefits.
Shame on the Washington Post editorial board's lack of judgment. And shame on Harry Reid ditto. And kudos to Congressman Roscoe Bartlett for recognizing the handwriting on the wall and reading it out loud to the dunderheads of the 109th.
What about the Senate bill, S 3711? In July, Harry Reid said it won't solve our energy problems.
Here:
But I want to be crystal clear this morning - this bill will do little or nothing to fix America's energy crisis or the failed Bush-Cheney energy policies. And it won't have any impact at all on today's skyrocketing gas prices.
Nationally, prices at the pump are averaging just over 3 dollars a gallon. That's a record, at least in nominal terms. In Reno, Nevada, gas is about 3 dollars and 12 cents--up more than 50 cents from a year ago.
Let me say again - this bill will do nothing to bring down gasoline or diesel prices. They won't come down as long as demand keeps growing and the Big Oil Companies aren't investing their billions and billions of dollars in profits in new America energy jobs and manufacturing and in developing alternatives to oil.
This country needs a crash course to develop alternative and renewable energy. Unfortunately, this administration and this Republican Congress have not been willing to pursue this path.
We need to quickly bring much more fuel efficient cars and trucks to market and really promote energy efficiency and conservation.
That's what Rep. Roscoe Bartlett said about the House bill, ennit?
The difference between the 109th and the 110th on energy and offshore drilling can be summed up in one word: Pombo.
Richard W. Pombo was House Resources Committee Chairman in the 109th and received - ah, substantial - contributions from oil and gas companies. Jerry McNerney - has a startup company that intends to make wind turbines.
To quote the WaPo, "Pombo pushed hard to open up U.S. waters to more oil and natural gas exploration, but he would not accept a Senate version limited to a new part of the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling advocates now hope the House will compromise and accept the Senate version."
Now, the 110th has a chance to promote alternative energy legislation. Offshore drilling was the main energy initiative this year. Nearly everything but offshore drilling will have to go through Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, the probable chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico is probable chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
So why in hell does Harry Reid want to push for a conference bill on offshore drilling in the lame duck 109th, including a Senate bill that by his own admission won't address our energy problems?
202-224-3542 Phone calls, 202-224-7327 faxes, and emails to Reid's office are in order. Let's see if we can stop this debacle.
Permalink | 55 comments