The House Energized!!!

gordontravels · 10-08-05, 11:09 AM

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.

Billo_Really · 10-08-05, 11:42 AM

Quote:

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 · 10-08-05, 11:46 AM

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

gordontravels · 10-08-05, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

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?

Deegan · 10-08-05, 04:04 PM

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 · 10-08-05, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

DeeJayH · 10-08-05, 05:12 PM

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 · 10-08-05, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.....

galenrox · 10-08-05, 05:29 PM

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?

purplehaze · 10-08-05, 06:05 PM

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?