by Matthew Hay Brown
The congressional stalemate over prices at the pump continues.
Senate Democrats unveiled new energy legislation this afternoon that they said would address the root causes of rising gasoline prices. But their Consumer-First Energy Act, with its proposals to raise taxes on oil companies, is likely to be blocked by Senate Republicans.
Meanwhile, the Republican proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, introduced this afternoon as the American Energy Production Act, is even less likely to go anywhere in the Democratic Senate.
"Even as it costs Americans more every day to fill up their gas tanks, Bush Republicans only offer more of the same failed energy policies that brought us to this point," Majority Leader Harry Reid said.
The Democratic legislation, by contrast, protects consumers, he said.
"Instead of helping big oil make more money at the expense of average Americans, we are forcing oil companies to change their ways," Reid said. "We will hold them accountable for unconscionable price-gouging and force them to invest in renewable energy or pay a price for refusing to do so."
In addition to rolling back tax breaks for oil companies and assessing a windfall profits tax to raise revenue to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, the Democratic legislation would halt new shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, authorize the president to crack down on price gouging and increase regulation against market speculation and price-fixing.
"Startling gasoline prices are making it harder and harder for working American families, farmers and small businesses to make ends meet," said New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "At a minimum, Senate Democrats are determined to take the short-term steps necessary to send the right signals to energy markets, and to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to protect American consumers."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is unimpressed.
"More than two years after their promise of a 'commonsense plan,' they finally unveiled it - minus the commonsense," the Kentucky Republican said. "Their answer to record-high gas prices was predictable: More taxes, more bureaucracy and continued dependence on OPEC. None of these proposals will lower the price at the pump; all will increase the strain on the family budget."
McConnell said Republicans supported language last year to raise fuel efficiency standards and increase the use alternative fuels.
"But we cannot seriously address the root cause of today's high gas prices without also addressing the issue of supply," he added.
"The senior senator from New York said last week that 500,000 more barrels of oil per day on the world market would bring relief at the pump.
"I agree with him. The difference is - I believe we should produce those additional barrels of oil right here in America, with American jobs, to bring prices down.
"The fact is, if President Clinton had not vetoed a bill to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge thirteen years ago, one million barrels of oil would be flowing from ANWR to American consumers every day - twice the amount that Senator Schumer indicated would lessen the pain at the pump."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
How can a policy that was never passed be a "failed" policy? Jay Leno once again makes more sense than the Democrats:
"The democrats say that we shouldn't drill in ANWR because it wouldn't effect prices for at least ten years... the same thing they said about it ten years ago."
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2008 4:09 PM
One thing's for certain, we went to war for HALIBURTON!!!
Posted by: DIRTY DICK CHENEY | May 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Why do Republicans want to give more money to fat, corrupt Saudi Sheiks?
Posted by: Al Khida | May 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Why do Republicans think the best way to cure an addiction is to produce more of an addictive substance?
Once again jay Leno makes more sense than Republicans.
Posted by: jackson | May 7, 2008 4:29 PM
Jeff...How come your guy found it so easy to blame speculators in the housing market, so the heck with them......but never once mentioned how speculators in the oil markets are driving this? I'll tell you...4 more years. Refineries running at 85% capacity......It's not ANWR...that's just the smoke screen you pro big business republicans like to use. You'll bail out Stearns...but McBush blames middle America trying to make a buck speculating. When the price of oil is affected by FOG in a shipping lane......don't blow smoke.
Posted by: bill r. | May 7, 2008 4:33 PM
Jackson, if we had a country that didn't have suburbs, cell phones, petroleum-based manufacturing and had high-speed rail connecting our major cities then maybe we'd have a choice to not use oil. But democrats stopped that stuff, too, so they could give us ethanol. We're stuck with the oil economy we have and the only thing that will bring demand down in the near term is more supply. I realize how you guys don't like economics but you should recognize that.
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2008 4:37 PM
I'm beginning to think it IS all about the war. The military is our competition for the oil and gas in this country. I don't believe everything I hear however, I heard this morning that it takes 55 gallons to move a tank one mile. And we all know how little mileage you get driving a Humvee or Suburban Attack Vehicle (SUV).
And if we were to drill in ANWAR, that oil would go to China and other countries closer to Alaska than the United States. WE would see none of it. It would cost far too much to ship it here than to sell it to other countries.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | May 7, 2008 4:41 PM
The republican playbook is to blame the democrats for the problem, while they suck up the big bucks.....do you think it's time to change the game in Washington?
Posted by: bill r. | May 7, 2008 4:51 PM
'if we were to drill in ANWAR, that oil would go to China and other countries closer to Alaska than the United States."
Prove it. This is american oil under american soil. I know the liberal groupthink on this is "that oil would go to the world market" but I'm from Missouri and you're going to have to show me.
Show me the rule or regulation that says our American oil would go to China or elsewhere. Show me the trade pact or the UN resolution or whatever it is that proves this claim. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying you need to prove it with more than "it's true because I say it is."
p.s. Bill r., he's not my guy. Never was and never will be. Neifi Perez, though, still is Dusty Baker's guy from what I've heard.
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2008 4:58 PM
AMERICA is tired of short-term solutions - NATIONWIDE - on every level
we need to make government less glitzy and more accountable
we need to stop using credit cards individually and as a nation to keep our economy going
WE ARE TIRED OF MAKING THE FRIENDS OF THE CLINTONS AND THE CHENEYS FILFTHY AND OBSCENELY RICH AT THE COST OF OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE
GO AWAY HILLARY
THERE WILL BE A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN SOON -ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND THAT SHERIFF MUST START THINKING LONG TERM AND STOP PANDERING AND LYING
NO MORE SHORT TERM B.S.
LET'S DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND GET ON WITH IT
NO MORE CLINTON/CHENEY SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS
Posted by: tired katt | May 7, 2008 5:02 PM
Jeff...McBush isn't your guy?
Posted by: bill r. | May 7, 2008 5:16 PM
Let's not forget that we elected a man president in 2000 and 2004 who, with all his daddy's money, couldn't find oil in Texas!
I just like reminding people of that.
Posted by: Paul | May 7, 2008 5:36 PM
Bill, I've told you several times that I wrote in McCain in 2000 like Cindy and didn't vote for either lard sandwich or giant duke (names cleaned up for swampability) in 2004.
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2008 5:37 PM
"BIG OIL SPEAKS"
WE GOT TIME ON OUR SIDE, YES WE DO!
WE GOT FERCK ON OUR SIDE YES WE DO!
WE GOT REPUBLICANS ON OUR SIDE, YES WE DO!
WE GOT THE BOEHNER ON OUR SIDE, YES WE DO.
WE GOT THE "BLUNTS" ON OUR SIDE, YES WE DO!
WE GOT JOHN MCCAIN ON OUR SIDE YES WE DO!
WE GOT "DAVID ADDINGTON" ON OUR SIDE YES WE DO!
WE GOT TIME ON OUR SIDE, YES WE DO!
WE GOT "OPEC" ON OUR SIDE YES WE DO.
WE GOT "NO SUPPLY" BUT A LOT OF "DEMAND" ON OUR SIDE YES WE DO!
SO UNTIL WE GET "IMMUNITY AND PROTECTION LIABILITY" WE GOT TIME ON OUR SIDE, YES WE DO!
$4.90 EAST COAST TIME
$4.90 PACIFIC COAST TIME
$4.00 MIDWEST COAST TIME
$6.00 GULF COAST COLO SOLO TIME, YES WE DO!
WE GOT TIME AND YOUR WALLET YES WE DO!
BECAUSE WHEN YOU HEAR "WIRETAP" WELL THAT REQUIRES A COURT ORDER AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT! SENATOR HATCH!
Posted by: Roger Morris | May 7, 2008 5:42 PM
I see Senator McCain has picked up the ball from Senator Clinton! The Gimmick Twins are at it again and let's not forget "little newt", Jeff's role model!! What a gang of reprobates. those Republicans have become!! Bring 'em on!! Oh, sorry, President Bush, I didn't mean to steal your line!!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | May 7, 2008 5:48 PM
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2008 4:58 PM
It's glorious capitalism Comrade!
The corporations who drill for the oil will sell it where they can make the most profit. They can make the most profit. There's nothing controlling where it will go beyond that. If Exxon can make more selling the oil in China, off to China it goes.
Unless you are suggesting that the US government socialize those oil fields and therefore control where the oil is sent?
Posted by: Vladimir Illych | May 7, 2008 6:11 PM
"Unless you are suggesting that the US government socialize those oil fields and therefore control where the oil is sent?"
That's 'nationalize' the oil fields, and I like that idea.
Posted by: Cheryl Hussein | May 7, 2008 6:42 PM
Thanks Vlad, you made my point for me. I think Jeff should start watching C-SPAN so he can understand things a little better.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | May 7, 2008 6:53 PM
Hmmmm, somehow the Democrats think raising taxes on the oil companies is going to help the consumers? Newsflash: They will just pass the costs down to the consumer, which means we pay more.
Then we have Loons whining about getting more oil. Newsflash to Loons: the more supply there is to meet the demand, the less it will cost. Oil is needed to power cars, trains, planes, boats, heat homes, and make products. All the computers being used eats up lots of power and that just keeps growing and growing. The solution: MORE energy.
But the Loons again show they would rather whine and complain and blame (and of course tax) RATHER than actually develop SOLUTIONS!
Loons, you want to place blame for high energy? Look in the stinkin' mirror!!!
Posted by: John D | May 7, 2008 7:42 PM
Let's thow some facts on thsi agruement:
In today's WSJ, worldwide gasoline prices in March are stated with the 12 month % increase:
China - $2.82/gallon - up 16%
U.S. - $3.45/gallon up 21%
Brazil - $5.94/gallon up $22%
UK - $8.38/gallon up 26%
Norway - $8.73/gallon up 35%
Worldwide demand is up. In order for prices to fall, demand has to drop and/or supply has to increase. Jay Leno had it right - if we had drilled in ANWAR 10 years ago, supply would have increased and prices would be lower. If, as lochness stated, the ANWAR oil goes to China - then other oil that ic surrently going to China would be on the world market - and prices would be lower.
We should not only be drilling in ANWAR, we should be drilling in Utah, North dakota, and off our coasts. This would make us less dependent on others for oil. Also, how about building nuclear power plants. Increase the supply of energy and prices drop.
Posted by: Terry | May 7, 2008 7:49 PM
Posted by: John D | May 7, 2008 7:42 PM
Tell me John...which frighten you more..terrorists or oil companies?
Posted by: bill r. | May 7, 2008 7:58 PM
The democrats, are, not surprisingly, proposing to raise taxes on the oil companies. Those taxes will be paid by the consumer or they will make a contribution to SINKING new, future energy investments. It's one or the other, good citizens.
The democrats, are, not surprisingly, raising the price-gouging issue. The next time it is proven, on some sort of conspiratorial level, will be the First time that it is proven. Have been waiting on that one for a good many years now.
NO Drilling in ANWR, a place that most of us have never seen or will ever visit. The male caribou love the Alyeska Pipeline. It's a good place to meet the ladies, as well as being a very excellent piece of American Engineering. This, of course, is a good reason for liberals / democrats to hate it and make sure that there is never another one accidentally built.
When ExxonMobil puts 65 cents in their Bank of America account, the Federal Government puts 35 cents in their Chase account. Lately, the split has been more like 60-40. Pretty good arrangement if u are the never-at-risk silent partner. Why the hell would Harry Reid be complaining about that.
If + 500,000 Bbls/Day or + 1,000,000 Bbls/Day means nothing, what would - 500,000 to -1,000,000 Bbls/Day mean. Would any gasoline buying consumer really want to find out.
I know Refineries. They DO NOT run at 85% capacity as normal s.o.p., unless some 30 year old raggedy-a## piece of equipment cannot be patched up fast enough, for the nth time, and made to work. Uncertainty and risks do not naturally encourage Xpensive investments in this sort of clap-trap. Crude Stills, Reformers, HDS Units, Sulfur units VERY typically operate at 98% capacity OR GREATER, in a calendar year. FCCUs are invariably OVER design, day- in and day-out over a 2-3 year cycle. If you know a specific situation where this is not true, you should unequivocally state it.
Continue to constrict the supply, the commodity speculators will continue to insure that the Price goes up. A very painful, very predictable outcome. A match made in Washington D.C., by the usual witless suspects.
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | May 7, 2008 8:14 PM
"We should not only be drilling in ANWAR, we should be drilling in Utah, North dakota, and off our coasts. This would make us less dependent on others for oil. Also, how about building nuclear power plants."
Wow--can we start drilling in your yard? Are you volunteering to bury the nuclear waste under your house?
I didn't think so.
And why are those selfish folks along the coast not willing to set up drills on their views? Ask Jeb Bush!
According to estimates, the oil from ANWR would be a drop in our proverbial bucket. Best estimates are that ANWR might produce 12 Billion barrels, total. The US economy consumes 20 million barrels A DAY!
Yes if we had drilled in ANWR ten years ago, IT WOULD ALL BE GONE by now.
Doesn't it make more sense to spend money on alternatives to oil?
Posted by: athena | May 7, 2008 9:17 PM
"They DO NOT run at 85% capacity as normal s.o.p., unless some 30 year old raggedy-a## piece of equipment cannot be patched up fast enough, for the nth time, and made to work."
And who's fault is it that the oil companies have a terrible track record at doing their basic maintenance even while making huge profits?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/09/business/bp.php
Is that the consumers fault? The governments fault? Nope. It's their fault, and then they use it as an excuse to make even higher profits.
Posted by: Kendle | May 7, 2008 10:12 PM
Athena, so what is your solution? In fact, what is the solution by those from the Left? Demand is up, supply isn't keeping up. You folks whine about the money going to Saudi Arabia, yet don't want to do anything to stop it.
ANWR? The left says no.
North Dakota (Athena estimates show 200 to 500 billion barrels of oil there)? The left says no.
Gulf of Mexico? The left says no.
Off Brazil (one of the largest oil finds EVER)? The left says no.
More refineries? The left says no.
Nuclear power? The Left says no.
Coal? The left says no.
Natural gas? The Left says no.
Windmills off Massachusetts? The Left says no.
More taxes? The Left says YES!
The Left? No solutions, just whine, whine, whine, moan, moan, moan, blame, blame, blame. You folks want blame? Look in the stinkin' mirror!!!
Posted by: John D | May 7, 2008 10:17 PM
Gull Island Alaska had 4 test holes drilled, 40 miles apart in 1972. All four came in with oil. with 1500 lbs of pressure there is enough oil under Gull Island to last the US for 200 years. The only way it will produce is if our government nationalizes Gull Island oil.
Does anyone have a picture of the Hillbeast with her mouth closed?
Posted by: bronellieone | May 7, 2008 10:23 PM
Athena,
I wish there was oil in my back yard. Drill away!!! I believe I would get some royalities from that. So you understand that, it would be like Jed Clampett.
If the gov't wants to buy my backyard for nuclear waste - make me an offer. Yucca mountain in uninhabited Nevada is much better. BTW, all those "non-polutting" electric cars you greens tout, where do you think the electricty comes from?
Athena, unlike you, I am not a shill for one party or canidate. I disagree with Governor Bush. Speaking of drilling off the coast of Florida, if its not us, it will be the Cuba/China partneship.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/alaska-oil-anwar.html
Not to mention the estimated trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.
Also, if that oil means nothing, why are the dems wanting to halt the filling of the strategic oil reserve - which is minute as compared to that.
If the law had not been vetoes in 1998 to drill in ANWAR, that oil would be coming to market now.
Alternatives to oil are decades away - does that solve today's problem???
Posted by: Terry | May 7, 2008 11:23 PM
Good points, Terry. Course, the Left will say, "Yeah, but it will be 5-10 years before we get any oil from those areas!" True, but we need the oil today and we will need the oil 5-10 years from now. Conservation, while slightly helpful and a good thing, does not even come close to solving the problem. More supply does. It's like food.There are more people to feed, the only way you can feed them is to grow more food. Demand for food is rising, hence supply must rise to keep up with demand. Same as energy. Demand for energy worldwide keeps rising, hence the need for more supply. Very simple concept really, well except for the Loons on the Left.
Posted by: John D | May 8, 2008 9:04 AM
Alternatives to oil are decades away - does that solve today's problem???
Posted by: Terry | May 7, 2008 11:23 PM
Actually there are alternatives that exist today. Sorry buddy, try again.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 10:02 AM
Terry,
We should be drilling in Utah, North dakota??? Maybe you should ask Wyomingif that's a good thing. Read this.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080508/D90HE4D00.html
Posted by: jethro | May 8, 2008 10:57 AM
Is that the consumers fault? The governments fault? Nope. It's their fault, and then they use it as an excuse to make even higher profits.
Posted by: Kendle | May 7, 2008 10:12 PM
Kendle,
Consumers Fault - Definitely Not
Governments Fault - No
Excuse for Profits - We are NOT allowed Excuses for ANY reason. Excuses will only get u runned off.
It is Economics. When a piece of clap-trap/what-not has a 10 year payback and you can't be sure that the larger asset that it resides in will even be around in 10 years, (that uncertainty thing) the investment probably can't be sold to the sharp pencils. Simple, Non-Emotional Economics. Not a fault issue, Yes, an uncertainty issue.
Your Friend, n da bizness,
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | May 8, 2008 11:25 AM
Anon,
With a comment as dumb as that, I wouldn't have signed it either.
Jethro - was that the Bush EPA that lower the ozone std to 75 parts per billion? How could that be - I thought Republicans didn't care about the environment?
Also, seems like the folks in Utah, dems and Republicans, both want the drilling:
http://www.americansforamericanenergy.org/utah+legislators+oppose+federal+land+grab.aspx
but some Congressman in New York obviously doesn't. I hope the natural gas that will be heading to the Northeast via the Rockies Express pipeline never reaches New York and see what the Congressman says when his constituants are screaming about sky-high natural gas bills.
And the North Dakota...
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/03/22/news/opinion/letters/151579.txt
Posted by: Terry | May 8, 2008 10:07 PM