The House of Representatives took up a triumvirate of environment and energy-related bills today, passing two that would increase funding for mass transit and curb oil market speculation. A third, more controversial measure would have forced oil companies to drill on the land they already own.
The votes highlighted the split between Democrats and Republicans on energy policy. Legislators have been battling for weeks over how to deal with record gasoline prices, with both parties hoping to pass some sort of legislation on the matter before they go into recess next week for the July 4 holiday.
The first vote, on a bill to expand funding for mass transit, passed by a margin of 322-98. It authorize a $750 million increase in funding for 2008 and 2009 for mass transit systems in cities with a population over 200,000 and $100 million for non-urban areas. It would also expand the transit subsidy program for federal employees.
The second vote was on legislation calling on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to exert tougher oversight of the oil futures markets. In a 402-19 vote, the House approved the resolution, which prompts the CFTC to use its authority to act against "sudden or unreasonable fluctuations" in energy futures prices and trading activities that "prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities." Lawmakers argue that hedge funds, pension funds, and entities that engage in energy speculation are responsible for artificially driving up the price of crude oil.
The failed vote was on a bill that would push oil companies to explore on the 68 million acres of public land, onshore and off, that are already leased for drilling. The "Use it or Lose It" legislation failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass the measure, by a vote of 223-195.
The bill would have barred companies from obtaining new leases unless they are developing the tracts they already have dibs on. It's estimated that 80 percent of the available domestic oil supply is contained in the 68 million acres already open for exploration -- an area the size of Georgia and Illinois combined.
Democrats argue that the companies shouldn't be asking for rights to drill in restricted areas like the continental shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if they aren't exploring and drilling in the land to which they already have access. "Big Oil could drill in millions of acres today without Congress even lifting a finger," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a cosponsor of the bill, when the measure was first unveiled. "This is yet another drilling decoy proffered by the Republicans and their friends in the oil and gas industry."
Republicans, who have been pushing legislation to open up more land to oil and gas drilling, largely opposed the measure. "Companies already are actively exploring their currently leased lands, and once they determine that oil or gas reserves are present only then can they actually begin drilling. The entire process can take years," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Some Democrats from oil-producing states were also against the bill, and the White House also issued a statement on Thursday pledging to veto the legislation if it passed.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Flat
meander Posted 12:25 pm
26 Jun 2008
Since when did the House become a body requiring two-thirds majority for legislation to pass? What happened to 50 percent + 1?
Permalink
Kate Sheppard Posted 1:32 am
27 Jun 2008
Kate Sheppard
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:34 am
27 Jun 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:58 am
27 Jun 2008
At least it's on the radar though. Maybe legislators will take this break to march in July 4th parades and talk up re-regulation of futures markets?
ENRON is LONG GONE, WHY is the LOOPHOLE STILL here DOUBLING GAS PRICES? CLOSE THE ENRON LOOPHOLE NOW!
Too long for a parade sign?
$2 0f that $4 dollar GAS goes to HEDGE FUNDS! CLOSE the ENRON LOOPHOLE NOW!
Hehey. Maybe I'll put that on the other side of the GHG sign.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:41 am
27 Jun 2008
Pubs will holler for more drilling. We need to shout about hedge fund re-regulation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:16 am
27 Jun 2008
Would ya rather gas prices go down?
I'm in agreement with ya that it's a bad practice, and it has boosted some oil companies' profits by quite a bit...
...but right now, high gas prices are almost the only thing ensuring our GHG emissions don't grow at the same phenomenonal rate they've been growin' at, 'specially in the United States.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:14 pm
27 Jun 2008
3 dollar gas would give them a breather in which to buy higher mileage cars, bikes, organize car pooling, and find mass transit.
They would all know it will be 4 bucks soon enough and have time to prepare.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:58 pm
27 Jun 2008
Yes, but wasn't that economic model, and the cheap price for commodities like fuel and building materials in particular, behind much of the destructive practices towards the environment to begin with?
At least now consummerism and rampant consumption is startin' to taper off (if only slightly).
3 dollar gas would give them a breather in which to buy higher mileage cars, bikes, organize car pooling, and find mass transit.
They would all know it will be 4 bucks soon enough and have time to prepare.
I really appreciate the optimism, and that may apply to most folks here, but that would assume that most people, in general, are not short-sighted. Unfortunately, most are.
If they weren't, then when gas reached $3 a gallon originally, wouldn't they have started to go for better cars, mass transit, and car pools?
But they didn't, 'cause they wanted to hold out for as long as possible, and as long as they could do it on $3 a gallon gas, they didn't really care what would happen at $4 a gallon, cause it wasn't here yet.
They didn't respond to gas as bein at $4 a gallon, until it actually was at $4 a gallon, even though most people saw it comin'.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:10 pm
27 Jun 2008
That's catastrophic, it paralyzes the ability to respond by drying up capital. Just what darth cheney planned, hehey.
A scare may galvanize the attention, but outright terror tends to creat despair. Despair leads to depression, real economic depression.
It's counter productive to our political goals too. If the swing voters see us as trying to kill the economy as eco-revenge or punishment for sins against mother nature, they are going to desert our side.
We have to instead tout 66 cent per gallon equivalent electric powered cars, running on wind and solar. That's a winning strategy for the swing vote. Barack should drive an RMI hypercar on youtube, yesterday!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink