The House Energized!!! (1 Viewer)

[gordontravels]

A bill just passed the House of Representatives yesterday dealing with our energy crisis. It was a very close vote with a handful of Republicans voting against it and a handful of Democrats voting for it. Still it was the Republicans that prevailed with a vote of 212 to 210. It is possible that the bill will fail in the Senate but if so we will continue to lose in the energy needs for our nation. We will continue to pay prices that, without this bill, will not only go higher but also face shortages in the future because of regional differences in our energy policy.

Among other things the bill would make it easier for small refiners to build new facilities which would help refinerys to be built in states beyond the Gulf Coast such as in the deserts of California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada. Other areas for better distribution such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Colorado and the Carolinas may help shorten distribution and help ease prices in the future.

It would spur exploration and development of oil shale in states like Colorado and Utah where some estimate nearly 100 years of energy needs could be locked away for the United States. It will relax regulations against new development off our coastal shelf which will still require further votes to allow said development. It would allow refiners to locate their facilities on federal lands such as military bases where costs and security would be much better while still standing environmental inspection.

One of the best things in this bill which Democrats and their Environmentalist supporters fought is to cut down on the 13 different blends of gasoline that are required for different regions of the country. These different blends mean that if a region like the Gulf Coast, California to Washington State or Florida may be hit by natural disaster, they will be able to receive shipments of fuel from other regions which will stop shortages and have an overall effect of moderating price spikes.

The bill also addresses price gouging at all levels of the energy industry including electricity, natural gas, home heating oil, propane, LNG, diesel, etc. This bill has teeth.

The Democrats stood after the vote and yelled, "shame, shame, shame, shame...". I think the shame would have been to not do the work and have no bill at all. This was politics on the part of the Democrats whereas if the Senate turns down the bill the Republicans will be able to point to the House victory and the lack of action of the nearly "lock-step" Democrats.

This bill will provide more energy in the future, provide for conservation, provide for dealing with price gouging from the street to the corporation, provide for natural disaster reaction in the energy market and help each and every American from the individual citizen with a car and people that provide products and distribution to the corporations that supply the energy in the first place.

By the way. It was largely due to the efforts of suspended House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R) from Texas that the votes were found and cast to move this legislation on. Those who hope Tom Delay is guilty may use this to oppose the bill but still, something is being done instead of nothing being proposed at all which is where the Democrats are coming from. Why should they. With the Republicans in charge if nothing is done then the Republicans can be blamed. Politics from a two party system rears it's ugly head.

You can find this reported today, Saturday, October 8, 2005 in the Washington Post Business Section. NBC news said the House vote was not "business as usual" but sure was "rare political theater". I say at least something was proposed and passed. Maybe we'll get something out of this for the people. :duel

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by gordontravels:
A bill just passed the House of Representatives yesterday dealing with our energy crisis. It was a very close vote with a handful of Republicans voting against it and a handful of Democrats voting for it. Still it was the Republicans that prevailed with a vote of 212 to 210. It is possible that the bill will fail in the Senate but if so we will continue to lose in the energy needs for our nation. We will continue to pay prices that, without this bill, will not only go higher but also face shortages in the future because of regional differences in our energy policy.

Among other things the bill would make it easier for small refiners to build new facilities which would help refinerys to be built in states beyond the Gulf Coast such as in the deserts of California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada. Other areas for better distribution such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Colorado and the Carolinas may help shorten distribution and help ease prices in the future.

It would spur exploration and development of oil shale in states like Colorado and Utah where some estimate nearly 100 years of energy needs could be locked away for the United States. It will relax regulations against new development off our coastal shelf which will still require further votes to allow said development. It would allow refiners to locate their facilities on federal lands such as military bases where costs and security would be much better while still standing environmental inspection.

One of the best things in this bill which Democrats and their Environmentalist supporters fought is to cut down on the 13 different blends of gasoline that are required for different regions of the country. These different blends mean that if a region like the Gulf Coast, California to Washington State or Florida may be hit by natural disaster, they will be able to receive shipments of fuel from other regions which will stop shortages and have an overall effect of moderating price spikes.

The bill also addresses price gouging at all levels of the energy industry including electricity, natural gas, home heating oil, propane, LNG, diesel, etc. This bill has teeth.

The Democrats stood after the vote and yelled, "shame, shame, shame, shame...". I think the shame would have been to not do the work and have no bill at all. This was politics on the part of the Democrats whereas if the Senate turns down the bill the Republicans will be able to point to the House victory and the lack of action of the nearly "lock-step" Democrats.

This bill will provide more energy in the future, provide for conservation, provide for dealing with price gouging from the street to the corporation, provide for natural disaster reaction in the energy market and help each and every American from the individual citizen with a car and people that provide products and distribution to the corporations that supply the energy in the first place.

By the way. It was largely due to the efforts of suspended House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R) from Texas that the votes were found and cast to move this legislation on. Those who hope Tom Delay is guilty may use this to oppose the bill but still, something is being done instead of nothing being proposed at all which is where the Democrats are coming from. Why should they. With the Republicans in charge if nothing is done then the Republicans can be blamed. Politics from a two party system rears it's ugly head.

You can find this reported today, Saturday, October 8, 2005 in the Washington Post Business Section. NBC news said the House vote was not "business as usual" but sure was "rare political theater". I say at least something was proposed and passed. Maybe we'll get something out of this for the people.

You go through this whole sermon without telling us the name of the bill. What's up with that?

 

[Navy Pride]

I saw clips of that on C-SPAN.......Pelosi looked scary and insane......

 

[gordontravels]

I saw clips of that on C-SPAN.......Pelosi looked scary and insane......

I appreciate that you take the time to view C-span and understand that if something comes out of the House of Representatives it will be found on C-span or their website. Of course since it is a House bill and was debated and passed in the House of Representatives you may have also seen the actual body of the bill on the House of Representatives website. I also posted that the article was in the Washington Post with date plainly noted.

It's amazing to me that people can be so ill informed as to not know where to find the basics of our government's actions or the publication that is cited even when it is plainly spelled out.

I agree Navy. I think the Democrats really thought they could defeat this bill and realizes that a political blunder was made with such strong opposition in the face of what we are paying for gasoline now and what we will be paying to heat and electrify our homes this winter.

This is far from a perfect bill but I notice more and more that the Democrats seem to oppose and have no answers when it comes to, "What would your side do?" Not wanting something is fine and I'm sure many Democrats thought they were standing on principle but it is just not good politics to stand for negativity and obstruction without, at the very least, putting forth bills for consideration with the provisions you think will help the situation. You can vote no your entire career in congress but don't people go to congress to work for what they think is right as well as against as what they think is wrong? :duel

 

[Deegan]

I am addicted to C-Span, and was watching when that took place, I thought it was healthy for the House. I mean....they always seem so tame, and emotionless, I was happy to see some real feeling, even if it was Pelosi.

It reminded me of the Parliament.

 

[gordontravels]

I am addicted to C-Span, and was watching when that took place, I thought it was healthy for the House. I mean....they always seem so tame, and emotionless, I was happy to see some real feeling, even if it was Pelosi.

It reminded me of the Parliament.

I may not agree with one side or the other on specific issues and I can certainly respect differences of opinion as long as it is not couched in name calling or the base rhetoric of profanity. I just found this topic interesting because with our media so favorable toward the left and most left leaning members of congress in the Democrat Party, I would expect the news media to report on what the Democrats want to do other than just oppose.

I don't hear any ideas from the left except for instance on Iraq, they want a date of withdrawl. That is just too simple and leaves too many questions unanswered. If the Democrats are going to oppose something then please, do it with an alternative because this opposition is getting old without them voicing those alternatives. :duel

 

[DeeJayH]

I am surprised that nobody has yet to bring up that it was supposed to be a 5 minute vote, but it went on for 44
and that the original tally was 212 against vs 210 for
and than they converted enough to pass it

Pelosi is a twit
she epitomizes everything i dislike about cali's attitude

 

[Navy Pride]

I am addicted to C-Span, and was watching when that took place, I thought it was healthy for the House. I mean....they always seem so tame, and emotionless, I was happy to see some real feeling, even if it was Pelosi.

It reminded me of the Parliament.

I agree of course but Pelosi looked like a mad raving woman.........Those eyes.........yuk

She is another Roman Catholic who is pro abortion.........It boggles the mind.....

 

[purplehaze]

The only semi-reasonable opposition to this bill Ive heard is that it will take too long to implement and see benefits from. This is a pretty weak argument compared to all the benefits I see in this bill, even if its 5 years down the road. Are there any other negatives that have been presented?

 

[cnredd]

The only semi-reasonable opposition to this bill Ive heard is that it will take too long to implement and see benefits from. This is a pretty weak argument compared to all the benefits I see in this bill, even if its 5 years down the road. Are there any other negatives that have been presented?

Yeah....It's a Republican Bill...

For some, that's all the reason needed to complain...:roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

Yeah....It's a Republican Bill...

For some, that's all the reason needed to complain...:roll:

:2rofll:

god bless the obstructionists with nothing to offer
is it any wonder the dems lost the House, the senate, the governors seats and teh Executive branch
and now they are in danger of losing the SCOTUS

 

[ALiberalModerate]

As far as I can tell all the bill does is force states and local communities to accept refineries in their backyard that they may not want and allow intensely profit rich oil companies to skirt environmental regulations (nothing but a big giveway to them).

Why does the government need to step in when oil companies have more than enough profits and incentives to build new refineries right now. In fact, Exxon right now is the most profitable company in the history of civilization. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to building new refineries. I am opposed though to the federal government being able to go against the wishes of states and local communites and force them to accept one when they may not want it. Does anyone on here want one in their backyard?

Moreover, if Congress really wanted to do something about gas prices they would bump up CAFE standards (which is what the Democrats and moderate Republicans are offering).

 

[gordontravels]

That bill sounds interesting, as far as I can tell from what's been said it sounds pretty good.
What's it called, so I can look into it further?

Sorry but I don't have the HR number. It was voted on Friday and will be on the House website which I think you can find at www.us.gov

It may also be found on the C-span website at www.cspan.org The House of Representatives is on C-span and the Senate is on C-span2.

I am not saying this bill is perfect and is probably far from it but if nothing were done now then the political consequences for the Republicans would be that the Democrats would point out they were doing nothing. As it is I don't think this bill will cure our ills in energy in the short term (say the next 2 to 3 years) but at least it is a move toward some of the things that have led to what we have now. More refinery capacity at the very least will help cure the winter crunch when refiners have to switch from gasoline and diesel production to home heating oil.

By allowing refiners to lease land long term on Federal facilities such as military bases there will be security as well as a faster process to start construction. Since time is money in putting up a plant even from the pre-planning stages, this will save money and save time to bring plants on line.

I am not saying the Democrats should not oppose if their environmental base wants them to but if they do they need to have alternatives to propose at the same time. If not, and they are successful like they almost were here, then it is "do nothing time". Not good for a party that leads at this time. :duel

 

[Navy Pride]

Thanks to the democrats in Congress we have dragged our feet on and energy bill for years................Its time to get it done......If we would have done this 10 years ago gas would not cost $3.00 a gallon now......

 

[AlbqOwl]

I watched a bit of the debate and actually got a little glimmer of hope for the GOP and the future of this country. I have been sick to death of timid Republicans who seemed unable to accept the fact that they are the winners and we elected them specifically so they could call the shots. I longed for the days of Gingrichism and the freshman GOP class of 1994 when the Republicans sealed their destiny for a decade, and I railed against the wimps who were letting it all slip away.

No it isn't a perfect bill but it is the first bill in 30 years that actually is moving us forward again. Nobody is going to have a refinery they don't want in their back yard, but you can bet a thousand little towns are going to be scratching and clawing to get one built in their back yard.

And with modern exploration and extraction technology, we have a chance to so reduce our dependency on OPEC that they won't even be much of a factor for us anymore. We will still have to monitor what goes on in the ME to prevent them from crippling somebody else's economy though. The world is so interrelated anymore that if one sinks, everybody gets pulled down.

 

[gordontravels]

As far as I can tell all the bill does is force states and local communities to accept refineries in their backyard that they may not want and allow intensely profit rich oil companies to skirt environmental regulations (nothing but a big giveway to them).

Why does the government need to step in when oil companies have more than enough profits and incentives to build new refineries right now. In fact, Exxon right now is the most profitable company in the history of civilization. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to building new refineries. I am opposed though to the federal government being able to go against the wishes of states and local communites and force them to accept one when they may not want it. Does anyone on here want one in their backyard?

Moreover, if Congress really wanted to do something about gas prices they would bump up CAFE standards (which is what the Democrats and moderate Republicans are offering).

President Bush has already called for higher CAFE standards some weeks ago and nothing is stopping the Democrats or Republicans from proposing just such a measure.

As for refinery construction: no one is proposing that the government pay for any of the construction costs and some relaxing of environmental regulations were stricken from this bill which is why some of the hold out Republicans changed their vote. There was nothing that could be done to change any Democrats to support it so we got the best we could now.

As for refineries in your back yard? California is the car capitol of the world and without this bill Californians will continue to pay well above the national average for fuel because of transportation costs to get it to them. I lived in California most of my life and would like to think my family members could benefit from this bill as I know they will eventually. "Not in my backyard" isn't fair when I was paying 1.69 for gasoline and the folks in Santa Barbara were already paying near 3.00.

If you have a state like California with high prices for fuel that promotes a higher average cost for fuel nationwide then you invite higher fuel prices for everyone. Supply and demand is just that and what prices are paid in California can affect what prices are paid in Tennessee. Cross country trucking will spread their fuel cost through the cost of what is being shipped as shippers have to recoup their freight costs. You will pay more for products at your favorite stores. This is coming anyway but why not try to do something about the fuel crisis that will eventually reverberate throughout the economy?

I may be happy to live in a cheaper part of the country but I do it by choice. Not everyone is so fortunate and even though wages are higher in California they need their own fuel processing plants and have quite a large backyard to put them in. You have to ask, "If President Bush or the Republicans didn't do anything what would the Democrats say then?" :duel

 

[Navy Pride]

I watched a bit of the debate and actually got a little glimmer of hope for the GOP and the future of this country. I have been sick to death of timid Republicans who seemed unable to accept the fact that they are the winners and we elected them specifically so they could call the shots. I longed for the days of Gingrichism and the freshman GOP class of 1994 when the Republicans sealed their destiny for a decade, and I railed against the wimps who were letting it all slip away.

No it isn't a perfect bill but it is the first bill in 30 years that actually is moving us forward again. Nobody is going to have a refinery they don't want in their back yard, but you can bet a thousand little towns are going to be scratching and clawing to get one built in their back yard.

And with modern exploration and extraction technology, we have a chance to so reduce our dependency on OPEC that they won't even be much of a factor for us anymore. We will still have to monitor what goes on in the ME to prevent them from crippling somebody else's economy though. The world is so interrelated anymore that if one sinks, everybody gets pulled down.

Exactly I can't wait for the day when we can tell those Arabs where to stick their oil..........

 

[ALiberalModerate]

President Bush has already called for higher CAFE standards some weeks ago and nothing is stopping the Democrats or Republicans from proposing just such a measure.

As for refinery construction: no one is proposing that the government pay for any of the construction costs and some relaxing of environmental regulations were stricken from this bill which is why some of the hold out Republicans changed their vote. There was nothing that could be done to change any Democrats to support it so we got the best we could now.

As for refineries in your back yard? California is the car capitol of the world and without this bill Californians will continue to pay well above the national average for fuel because of transportation costs to get it to them. I lived in California most of my life and would like to think my family members could benefit from this bill as I know they will eventually. "Not in my backyard" isn't fair when I was paying 1.69 for gasoline and the folks in Santa Barbara were already paying near 3.00.

If you have a state like California with high prices for fuel that promotes a higher average cost for fuel nationwide then you invite higher fuel prices for everyone. Supply and demand is just that and what prices are paid in California can affect what prices are paid in Tennessee. Cross country trucking will spread their fuel cost through the cost of what is being shipped as shippers have to recoup their freight costs. You will pay more for products at your favorite stores. This is coming anyway but why not try to do something about the fuel crisis that will eventually reverberate throughout the economy?

I may be happy to live in a cheaper part of the country but I do it by choice. Not everyone is so fortunate and even though wages are higher in California they need their own fuel processing plants and have quite a large backyard to put them in. You have to ask, "If President Bush or the Republicans didn't do anything what would the Democrats say then?" :duel

Actually, you are mistaken. The Bush Administration remains opposed to increases in CAFE standards (which by the way are what most economists credit as one of the chief reasons for the low oil prices of the 80s).

We need new refineries. The reasons they have not been built is that the Oil Industry has a significant economic incentive in not building them. That is the only reason.

However, the best way to decrease future prices at the pump and make us more competitive as other nations like China use greater shares of the world's oil production is to increase CAFE standards. Until the Bush administration and Congress does that, they really have not done **** for us in terms of energy. Anybody who thinks that we can do anything significant about gas prices, and our dependence on foreign oil without raising CAFE standards is either completely misinformed, or missleading themelves.

 

[cnredd]

Actually, you are mistaken. The Bush Administration remains opposed to increases in CAFE standards (which by the way are what most economists credit as one of the chief reasons for the low oil prices of the 80s).

Damn you just throw out whatever you feel like, don't ya?

New SUV, minivan fuel standards proposed
Government calls on automakers to make modest improvements

ATLANTA - With gas prices continuing to rise, the Bush administration on Tuesday proposed new rules to compel auto manufacturers to make pickup trucks, minivans and some sport utility vehicles more fuel efficient. Environmentalists said the plan would do little to wean the nation from its dependence on foreign oil.

The proposal would require the auto industry to raise standards for most vehicles other than cars beginning in 2008. All automakers would have to comply with the new system by 2011.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9051613/

Now let me guess...Time for a redirect?

Something like..."Well it won't do any good."...or maybe "It's just a smoke-screen."...or "Environmentalists say it won't help...:roll:

 

[gordontravels]

Damn you just throw out whatever you feel like, don't ya?

New SUV, minivan fuel standards proposed
Government calls on automakers to make modest improvements

ATLANTA - With gas prices continuing to rise, the Bush administration on Tuesday proposed new rules to compel auto manufacturers to make pickup trucks, minivans and some sport utility vehicles more fuel efficient. Environmentalists said the plan would do little to wean the nation from its dependence on foreign oil.

The proposal would require the auto industry to raise standards for most vehicles other than cars beginning in 2008. All automakers would have to comply with the new system by 2011.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9051613/

Now let me guess...Time for a redirect?

Something like..."Well it won't do any good."...or maybe "It's just a smoke-screen."...or "Environmentalists say it won't help...:roll:

Actually I saw the CAFE report on MSNBC and was referencing it from that. As usual if it was bad for the Bush Administration you would see it once every half hour but something like suggesting higher CAFE standards warranted maybe 2 or 3 mentions on one day and then nothing more. I can't blame Southern Democrat for not being unaware of it.

What I will say is it surely isn't fair to be called "mistaken". I can understand it if what I said was just something I made up but knowing it was reported and not wanting to just make something up which would ruin my credibility, I wrote what I saw. I don't post something here in the forum that I haven't seen and many times I am watching it or just have when I post.

The other thing is the reasoning that the Oil Companies have every reason not to build refineries as Southern Democrat says. They haven't built a new refinery since 1976. That's 30 years. That is quite a long time to wait for their profits to emerge don't you think. How do you account that the French, Germans and British have been paying in the range of $5 a gallon for over a decade and now near $8.

With regulation it can take 6 to 10 years from the time you say you want to build a refinery until it is ready to produce. This is regulation, not regulations. If it was simple regulations that had to be followed then that would be part of the planning. It's not. The regulations have to be taken through a "regulatory process" and that slows everything which increases cost. These regulations have been written over the last 40+ years. To paint a reason for no refineries and label it "the only reason" is to simply want to blame them and not accept anything else such as environmental regulation. There's something else to blame and turning a blind eye is not only short sighted but purely partisan.

I know most people look at a post and don't read it through because they only want to sieze on a point or two and then hurry on to their own argument but please - look at California and their legislature and tell me it's all the Oil Companies fault. If you do that you are either ignorant of the facts or ignoring them. :duel

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Damn you just throw out whatever you feel like, don't ya?

New SUV, minivan fuel standards proposed
Government calls on automakers to make modest improvements

ATLANTA - With gas prices continuing to rise, the Bush administration on Tuesday proposed new rules to compel auto manufacturers to make pickup trucks, minivans and some sport utility vehicles more fuel efficient. Environmentalists said the plan would do little to wean the nation from its dependence on foreign oil.

The proposal would require the auto industry to raise standards for most vehicles other than cars beginning in 2008. All automakers would have to comply with the new system by 2011.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9051613/

Now let me guess...Time for a redirect?

Something like..."Well it won't do any good."...or maybe "It's just a smoke-screen."...or "Environmentalists say it won't help...:roll:

I am sorry, but you are misinformed. I was perfectly aware of Bush's proposals when I made that statement.

Bush has proposed a very modest increase in fuel efficiency for some SUVs, light trucks, and minivans. However, his proposals completely exempt all passenger cars and larger SUVs, which are the problem, from the increase in fuel efficiency.

Any step forward in this regard is good. However, this is a fairly insignificant one.

The Bush Administration and most conservative Republicans in Congress do in fact oppose increases in CAFÉ standards, which are across the board increases in fuel economy for new vehicles, that moderate Republicans and Democrats have proposed.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Thanks to the democrats in Congress we have dragged our feet on and energy bill for years................Its time to get it done......If we would have done this 10 years ago gas would not cost $3.00 a gallon now......

Yet another post whose words are incredibly misinformed! Amazing!

Bush is clearly the WORST president in our history environmentally among other misdeeds that he does daily. Gas prices are at $3 per gallon while oil companies are earning record profits! If Bush hadn't fuc^ed up so many other things his record on the environment would be a bigger story, but since he's best known for starting wars and record deficit spending the environment gets little notice.

You want to do something about the lack of gasoline? Add a $1 federal tax and watch consumption go down. This simple solution is way too intelligent for Bush and Navy Pride.

This bill was so vile that the Bushies had to break Congressional rules to finally get it passed. A vote is supposed to be no longer than 5 minutes yet Republicans stalled for 40 minutes in order to get reps to change their votes! I remind you Navy Genius that Republicans have a clear majority in the House so this bill should have passed in 5 seconds, no less 5 minutes. It didn't because even Republicans knew that this was another cronyism bill that lines the oil companies pockets with even more money while further degenerating the environment AND does nothing to solve the real energy crisis, namely finding ALTERNATIVE energy sources!

You think's Bush is despised now for his energy policies and the cost of gas? Just wait two months when all of us have to pay unbelievable costs for heating this winter. It's going to upset millions and millions of Americans and it's going to negatively impact our economy, again, as businesses struggle to pay their heating bills. Translation? We're looking at the potential for serious inflation over the next 6 monthsand it will be Bush and his cronies fault!

 

[26 X World Champs]

She is another Roman Catholic who is pro abortion.........It boggles the mind.....

Versus people like you who claim to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty?

Twisted words from you Mr. Pride, twisted words.

You're a frickin' genius!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yet another post whose words are incredibly misinformed! Amazing!

Bush is clearly the WORST president in our history environmentally among other misdeeds that he does daily. Gas prices are at $3 per gallon while oil companies are earning record profits! If Bush hadn't fuc^ed up so many other things his record on the environment would be a bigger story, but since he's best known for starting wars and record deficit spending the environment gets little notice.

You want to do something about the lack of gasoline? Add a $1 federal tax and watch consumption go down. This simple solution is way too intelligent for Bush and Navy Pride.

This bill was so vile that the Bushies had to break Congressional rules to finally get it passed. A vote is supposed to be no longer than 5 minutes yet Republicans stalled for 40 minutes in order to get reps to change their votes! I remind you Navy Genius that Republicans have a clear majority in the House so this bill should have passed in 5 seconds, no less 5 minutes. It didn't because even Republicans knew that this was another cronyism bill that lines the oil companies pockets with even more money while further degenerating the environment AND does nothing to solve the real energy crisis, namely finding ALTERNATIVE energy sources!

You think's Bush is despised now for his energy policies and the cost of gas? Just wait two months when all of us have to pay unbelievable costs for heating this winter. It's going to upset millions and millions of Americans and it's going to negatively impact our economy, again, as businesses struggle to pay their heating bills. Translation? We're looking at the potential for serious inflation over the next 6 monthsand it will be Bush and his cronies fault!

Ok wait a minute. There is no doubt that President Bush has an absolutely abysmal environmental record. He is the only president to ever receive and F rating from the League of Conservation Voters. I am an avid outdoorsman. I fish, hike, backpack, canoe, and occasionally hunt, every opportunity I get. I love our nation’s wild lands. Conservation is an issue that I know a great deal about and it is one of the most important issues to me. My biggest concern in 2000 was that if Bush were elected, that pro-exploitation members of his administration would do everything they could to roll back nearly a century of environmental progress and they have consistently tried to do just that.

That all said, I don’t see how anyone could reasonably argue that the current high gas prices, high heating oil prices, and high natural gas prices are the fault of the Bush administration.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Exactly I can't wait for the day when we can tell those Arabs where to stick their oil..........

You're a Frickin' Genius Navy Pride! Having refineries has nothing to do with reducing our dependence on foreign oil! How lame are your posts?

This bill can FORCE States to accept edicts from the Federal Government as to where new refiniries have to go. I thought you were against the Fed telling States what to do Navy Pride?

This bill also does NOTHING to reduce our current gas issues as it will be 10 years before new refineries are built and open and up to capacity.

You want to tell OPEC to stick it? Then I strongly suggest that you find ALTERNATIVE energy sources since oil is a commodity that is running out. I realize that geniuses like you think that the oil in Iraq is there by mistake and it really belongs to the USA....you're a frickin' genius!