Libs, If You Don't Like It Quit Complaining........

[benchmstr]

.....It's your fault



       
Offshore Oil Drilling to Get Another Look in Congress
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

 E-Mail Respond Print Share:

WASHINGTON —  With oil and gas prices reaching record highs and little relief in sight, Republican members of Congress are looking at a long-sought, but so far unsuccessful plan to open American shores up to more petroleum exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he'll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

"For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves," Peterson said, according to USA Today. "With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."

Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.

Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.

"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.

Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."

Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.

The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."

He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."

dude seriously it scares me that people like you are allowed to vote.

bench

[Arnold jr]

While the Senate was Republican controlled (ie: greater than 50%), they didn't have the overall numbers necessary to pass the bill.  Is it 2/3?  Sorry, my civics history is a bit foggy!

You are correct. A bill needs 2/3 or the vote in both houses to pass, then it has to be signed by the president. If he veto's the bill, it then needs 3/4 of the vote form both houses to pass.

This is a problem most Americans seem to be unaware of. Just because one side has technical controll of congress, doesn't mean they have full control. Since 90's when the Republicans took controll of congress, to present day where Democrats posses the majority, neither side has had enough of their people in to make that much of a difference...there have been several years where the difference was only a couple people on one side or the other...hard to get 2/3 of the vote that way, and forget about 3/4.

The real problem is the American peoples inability to understand how our system works. I've heard many people say they don't want either side to have too much power...they like the fact that even though one side has a majority that it's still close...they often even say they like it when the house is controlled by one part and the White House by another...tell me how this makes sense? How is anything ever supposed to really get done?

The tree-huggers are to blame for the fact that foreign countries will be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before we will.  And which side caters to the hippies that just won't die?  The Dems.

Don't get me wrong, both sides are just as full of different colored shit, but you can't throw this into any lap but the Liberals.

Can't argue with this at all. If it were not for this, America would have been self-sufficient a long, long time ago.

[timfogarty]

You are correct. A bill needs 2/3 or the vote in both houses to pass, then it has to be signed by the president. If he veto's the bill, it then needs 3/4 of the vote form both houses to pass.

um, no.

it takes 50% + 1 votes to pass a bill in both the House and the Senate.  However, it takes 60 votes (which is not 2/3rds) to end a filibuster in the Senate, if the minority chooses to stage one.

To override a veto, it takes 2/3rds of each house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

[Arnold jr]

um, no.

it takes 50% + 1 votes to pass a bill in both the House and the Senate.  However, it takes 60 votes (which is not 2/3rds) to end a filibuster in the Senate, if the minority chooses to stage one.

To override a veto, it takes 2/3rds of each house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

That link you provided only talks about Amendments. But you're right, I was thinking of Amendments when I posted my comments, but it's still harder then the way you made it sound for a bill to pass.

You need 50%+1 in both houses. 435 members in the house, 100 in the senate...and a problem that often arises is that not everyone votes on all the bills...more don't vote more often then vote. .unless a huge vote like say appropriations. Point being, it can be hard to get the 50% in both the house and senate, plus presidentail approval.

[slaveboy1980]

.....It's your fault



       
Offshore Oil Drilling to Get Another Look in Congress
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

 E-Mail Respond Print Share:

WASHINGTON —  With oil and gas prices reaching record highs and little relief in sight, Republican members of Congress are looking at a long-sought, but so far unsuccessful plan to open American shores up to more petroleum exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he'll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

"For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves," Peterson said, according to USA Today. "With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."

Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.

Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.

"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.

Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."

Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.

The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."

He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."

sounds like your the one complaining.

[CQ]

So...other countries are drilling near our waters and stealing resources.  Wake up people.

No flame, but to my knowledge it is far from stealing. The Cubans are drilling their legally owned territorial waters

The press is making it sound all dramatic "only 60 miles off Florida", which sounds so close - but that only makes it 30 miles off Cuban land. The Chinese are active yes, in conjunction with the Cubanos and with their permission.

[slaveboy1980]

No flame, but to my knowledge it is far from stealing. The Cubans are drilling their legally owned territorial waters

The press is making it sound all dramatic "only 60 miles off Florida", which sounds so close - but that only makes it 30 miles off Cuban land. The Chinese are active yes, in conjunction with the Cubanos and with their permission.

you will have to excuse them, they are americans.   

they are so used to stealing from other countries.