America’s energy crisis has reached critical mass. Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, the result of decades of misguided Washington policy, is making us vulnerable abroad, and destroying jobs and hurting families and schools at home.
To solve this crisis, we need to do it all, and we need to do it now. We need alternative energy sources – wind, solar, biomass, clean coal, nuclear. We need more conservation. And in an environmentally sound manner, we need to unlock the vast oil and gas resources that are currently off-limits to the American people in energy-rich locations such as Alaska, the mountainous West, and deepwater energy zones far off our coasts.
In short, we need all of the above.
The good news: legislation that would put the “all-of-the-above” strategy into effect – the American Energy Act – was introduced in Congress two months ago. It enjoys strong support among the American people. The bad news: Congress is controlled by the Democratic Party. And with time running short, its leaders – Nancy Pelosi of California, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Barack Obama of Illinois – have refused to allow a vote on “all of the above.”
By doing anything less than all-of-the-above, Congress is cheating our children and defying the will of the American people, who want Congress to pass the most aggressive energy reforms possible. It’s also delaying our nation’s transition to clean, alternative, homegrown energy – the very objective Democratic leaders claim to support.
House Republicans stunned Democratic leaders last month by staying in Washington throughout Congress’ traditional August break to protest Nancy Pelosi’s decision to adjourn the House without a vote on the comprehensive energy reforms Americans want. We took to the House floor every day for five weeks, even during our own convention, asking the Democratic Speaker to bring Congress back for a vote.
Our protest made national headlines and won the support of millions of Americans. Democrats scrambled to abandon their “no energy” rhetoric. But when it comes to the policy, Democratic leaders still haven’t gotten the message. They still refuse to allow an honest vote on the all-of-the-above energy plan the American people want.
Americans have run out of patience, and Democratic leaders have run out of excuses. Democrats say drilling alone won’t solve our problems. But no one is advocating a “drill-only” approach. To the contrary, the American Energy Act is comprehensive: equal parts production, conservation, and innovation. And there’s a direct connection in the bill between exploration of the resources available today for our use, and the development of the clean, alternative fuels of tomorrow.
Under the American Energy Act, our nation’s vast energy resources would be unlocked and opened for environmentally responsible exploration. A significant share of the revenues from exploration would go into a renewable energy trust fund. The money in this trust fund would be plowed directly into development and implementation of clean, renewable energy sources throughout the United States – the kind of alternative energy we need, ultimately, in order to permanently end America’s foreign energy dependence. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders have refused to allow a vote.
The more of America’s existing resources Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama keep under the lock and key of the federal government, the longer it will take to develop and achieve the widespread use of clean, alternative fuels. By blocking a vote on the American Energy Act, the leaders of the Democratic Party are blocking America’s path to clean, affordable, renewable energy.
This is why the Democratic leadership’s new “compromise” energy bill is not a compromise at all. At a time when Americans are demanding Congress do all-of-the-above, the Democratic leadership bill allows almost none of the above. To begin, it would place vast American oil and gas supplies under lock-and-key permanently. For example, by leaving out critical revenue-sharing with coastal states and banning environmentally-safe drilling up to 50 miles offshore, it permanently locks away some 88 percent of the best American oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. Moreover, it will produce no new energy on Alaska’s remote North Slope and in the Inter-Mountain West, where trillions – yes, trillions – barrels of oil sits idly today. Their sham bill also does nothing to tap the potential of nuclear energy and clean coal. It keeps the door slammed shut on construction of new refineries. And it would raise taxes and increase electricity costs, taking more money from the pockets of energy-strapped families at a time when they need relief.
Now is not a time for half-measures or politically-motivated window dressing. To solve America’s energy crisis, we need to do it all, and do it now. It starts with a vote on the American Energy Act. The American people deserve nothing less, and shouldn’t settle for anything less.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Stand strong, Congressman.
NightTwister (Diary) Monday, September 15th at 8:05AM EST (link)Thank you for your efforts over the summer and now. My congresswoman, Marilyn Musgrave, has stood with you and made me proud.
Don’t give in to the Democrat’s drill-nowhere, drill-never plan. The American people are behind you. We know that if you stand firm, the Democrats will eventually cave in, just as they always do.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill
This Independent supports all the above
IndependentfrMI (Diary) Monday, September 15th at 8:12AM EST (link)With the democrats in control is it any wonder they are like children on the playground; If you won’t play the game their way then they take the ball and go home. Just like they will do by not allowing a vote and go home for their break AGAIN!
My thanks to the GOP and some dems efforts to get something reasonable done in Congress to help the suffering of the American people when it comes to our energy independence.
Please tell me...
drothgery Monday, September 15th at 8:49AM EST (link)… you’re getting rid of stupid energy tarriffs (i.e. the ones on Brazillian ethanol and Canadian tar sands oil) while you’re at it.
Drilling, more nuclear power, and alternative energy are medium to long term projects (which definitely should be encouraged). Getting rid of market distortions in the current system can help now.
October 1 is the deadline, ...
skorrent Monday, September 15th at 10:34AM EST (link)As I understand it, that current OCS and Shale drilling bans expire. I can’t see any way for a meaningful bill to pass before then, if the GOP stands firm. This puts the Dems in an even greater jam, trying to REIMPOSE drill bans in the face of popular pressure to Drill Now!
Well...
zroxx (Diary) Monday, September 15th at 10:50AM EST (link)I found a more detailed description of the bill and it’s key points here.
It strikes me as a mix of good and bad. I’m happy to see words like “open” and “allow”, and phrases like “cutting bureaucratic red tape that … blocks”. Those all appear to make great sense and they work to get government out of the way. So bravo!
But what’s conservative about doing things like “Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles …”? My understanding is the market is already distorted regarding hybrid vehicles. If American citizens want tax efficient vehicles, let them buy them and let manufacturers continue working hard to compete for their business by improving their own product and lowering their own costs. This part of the bill does nothing more than force American citizens who do not purchase a fuel efficient vehicle to foot part of the cost for those who do, and that’s quite un-just. How about just lowering taxes for every citizen, regardless of what they do or do not purchase???
It seems to me items like “Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen …” are similarly meddlesome and distorting aspect of the bill. What we need are fewer ways of subsidizing specific industries and fewer instances of the government trying to “economically engineer” specific behaviours, not more.
What’s with “Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon …” – this is certainly not the kind of thing a government of limited and focused responsibilities needs to engage in. I may write further on this element of the bill.
Finally, “Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain …” strikes me as particularly odious. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the intent here, but why in the world would you propose to take some portion of revenues generated by companies that take advantage of the opportunities you would open up for them?
So, I see some positives and negatives, I’d like to think you’ll address the negatives and make the bill more just and more in line with limiting and/or lowering the size of government.
Do Nothing
Iblis (Diary) Monday, September 15th at 11:41AM EST (link)The ban will expire on its own September 30. That certainly has to be better than any compromise plan with the Democrats.
A thought about "alternate" energy sources
Next93 (Diary) Monday, September 15th at 12:12PM EST (link)Congressman Boehner, let me begin by thanking you for the Second American Tea Party. If one watched only the MSM, it would have been one of the best-kept secrets of the Bush presidency, but we can thank God that Al Gore invented the internet for us.
It seems to me that the so-called “alternative” energy sources are anything BUT alternative; either the government is directly subsidizing them, indirectly subsidizing them through trade embargos on competing fuels, or creating artificial markets through state “green energy” laws that mandate specific shares of solar and wind energy to the utility companies.
Nowhere in any of these “alternatives” do I see myself having a choice. When I went to school, “mandatory” and “alternative” had two different meanings.
The problem I have with all of these is that they’re unneccessary. If any of these “alternative” sources were to be cost-effective with the use of coal or petroleum, they won’t need the government to prop them up, they’ll be worth billions.
Will the taxpayers or consumers (who’ve been held up for the development costs) get a penny of that? No. We have a system in which the risk has been socialized and the gains privatized. That sort of thing might fly in “free” Russia, but conservatives here should be outraged by the notion.
So here’s my idea: support the develoment of alternative fuels by waiving the capital gains taxes on investments into companies that are doing basic research into alternative fuels or high-mileage vehicles. That way, the tax-payers aren’t on the hook for anything (beleive me, we’ll make far more than the CG taxes back from any one of these sources if they succeed), the consumers get a real alternative, and the people standing to make money from these enterprises are doing so by taking the risks.
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.
Prizes work
drothgery Monday, September 15th at 3:05PM EST (link)They probably aren’t needed for improving auto fuel efficiency (they’re a lot more interesting for space), but if you’re going to do government-funded R&D at all, it’s not a bad way to do it. They have a fixed, one-time cost, and don’t cost anything at all if the prize’s goals aren’t met.
Well...
zroxx (Diary) Monday, September 15th at 3:51PM EST (link)I guess the key question is, if you’re going to do these sorts of government funded auto manufacturing subsidies.
I’d have imagined the Republican answer would be no. I believe that is the right answer, particularly in light of the successes of privately funded efforts like I think you were referring to, possibly the Ansari X-Prize. It’s disturbing to see this continuing creep of government-as-the-solution thinking in Republican policies.
Proud Buckeye
rick554 Monday, September 15th at 5:28PM EST (link)I remain PROUD of my fellow Buckeye, The Minority Leader of the HOUSE, Cong. John Boehner. Keep up the FIGHT Congressman! We got your back!!!
Rick554
Eh.
drothgery Monday, September 15th at 8:26PM EST (link)It’s unlikely the government is going to get out of the business of funding basic research (even thinking about cutting NIH or NSF provokes outrage from everyone but the most committed anti-spending guys in congress).
And if you want to encourage building something more expensive than SpaceShipOne, you’ll need a bigger prize than the X-prize.