Posted on 06/27/2008 7:04:55 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
I tried to find the roll call for both Houses of Congress but didn’t find it. But here is the Energy Act of 2001 that you may want to research for the roll call to see how they voted.
107th Congress
“National Energy Security Act of 2001”
Bills: S.388, S.389
True. But even Jimmah had enough sense to leave a large part of ANWR open for oil exploration. Too bad that's been ignored by the current Dems and RINOs.
But it’s so much easier to point fingers at the other party and ignore those of our own who do the same.
It was the same cast of characters, Snowe, and her NE bunch with “The Maverick” earning his nick name. There is always 4-5 Pubies the Dems can count on.
True. But even Jimmah had enough sense to leave a large part of ANWR open for oil exploration. Too bad that's been ignored by the current Dems and RINOs.
Then again ... looks like he flopped on that back in '05:
Arctic Folly
By Jimmy Carter
The Washington Post
Tuesday 13 September 2005
Congress is about to make one of those big decisions that marks an era. Unless wiser heads prevail, it may do it badly - making the wrong decision in the wrong way and about the wrong place. At stake is America's greatest wildlife sanctuary, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To dissuade Congress from this environmental tragedy, Americans must rally, and quickly.
Congress had its Pyrrhic energy victory this summer, with a new energy policy that ignores much-needed conservation measures and gives the oil industry large new tax breaks regardless of where it drills and pumps. Surely Congress has done more than enough to increase the profits of the oil industry.
Yet now, in a separate decision, the White House and Big Oil are pressuring Congress to allow drilling rigs to rip into the ecological heart of America's preeminent wildlife sanctuary. We must not confuse this with Prudhoe Bay, which lies west of the Arctic refuge and is already an industrial landscape resembling Houston more than Yellowstone.
With increasing gasoline prices bringing economic hardship and concern to many Americans, we must not be misled by oil lobbyists who are trying to convince us that our energy security is singularly dependent on sacrificing the Arctic refuge. They promote the false premise that development will touch just a few thousand acres when, in fact, it would introduce roads and pipelines spider-webbing across hundreds of thousands of acres on the fragile coastal plain.
We cannot drill our way to energy security or lower gasoline prices as long as our nation sits on just 3 percent of world oil reserves yet accounts for 25 percent of all oil consumption. An obvious answer is to increase the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, at least to the level we set more than a quarter-century ago.
Instead, the administration recently proposed a tiny increase in gas mileage for SUVs, minivans and pickups. Not effective until the 2011 models, this would save about one month's current consumption of fuel over the next 20 years - far less than will be saved in just one state by a new California law. The new ruling offers automobile makers an opportunity to avoid the reductions by modifying the size of various models as they persist in manufacturing gas guzzlers. It is not a coincidence that Moody's has just downgraded the debt of General Motors and Ford to junk status, while makers of efficient vehicles prosper.
I have been to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to study the wilderness wildlife. Far from being the frozen "desert" some suggest, this is a rich, Serengeti-like haven of life: nursery for caribou, polar bears, walruses and millions of shorebirds and waterfowl that migrate annually to the Lower 48. To sit, as Rosalynn and I did, watching a herd of musk oxen circle-up to defend their young and then to find yourself literally in the midst of thousands of caribou streaming by is to touch in a fundamental way God's glorious ark of teeming wildlife.
We Americans use a lot of energy, and millions of us want to do so in a more efficient way that also allows us to cherish our disappearing wilderness heritage. In the Arctic refuge we cannot have it both ways. In the next few months Americans could lose this special and amazing place through a backdoor legislative maneuver.
Each fall Congress endeavors to combine budgetary directives covering the nation's $2.5 trillion dollar annual budget in a single "reconciliation" decision. In a tricky ploy to avoid full debate, drilling advocates have buried their despoil-the-Arctic goal in this mammoth measure. So, conservation-minded Americans must ask our elected representatives to vote down any final budget reconciliation bill that would allow the sacrifice of our Arctic sanctuary.
Now is the time to speak up for the ecological integrity of this unsurpassed 18-million-acre wilderness. Many Americans will be in Washington on Sept. 20 for the Arctic Refuge Action Day rally on the Mall and to contact congressional representatives personally.
If we are not wise enough to protect the Arctic refuge, future generations will condemn us for needlessly sacrificing the wilderness of their world to feed our profligate, short-term and shortsighted energy habit. The pathway to a better, more sustainable energy future does not wind through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Carter is the founder of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
Over the years, more than a few pubbercans have been less than enthusiastic about being charged with damaging the sensibilities of the precious caribou. The old thing about good men just standing by while bad men did their deed.
Oops ... meant to ping you to the above post.
Stalled in the Senate. Even though the GOP had a 51 - 49 majority, too many RINOs sided with the envro-Dems. I believe Johnny Boy McCain being one of them along with the usual suspects like Snowe and Chaffee (no longer in the Senate Gott Sei Dank!).
And in the meantime you can pay four-fifty for a gallon of gasoline, but the caribou must not be disturbed! I feel like we’ve gone through the Looking Glass.
But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them — we’ll call them Republicans — did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions.
Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska’s barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill! We’d be gushing oil now — except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.
Love that Ann!
Well, I found a NYT article that listed the RINOS as Coleman (MN), Smith (OR), Chafee(RI), Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), DeWine (OH), Fitzgerald (IL), and yes... John McCain of Arizona.
See the Republican Main Street Partnership which was at its height of power between 2002 and 2006 (at which point voters decided to eject many of the fake Democrats and replace them with real ones).
Those still in office include Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter. Lincoln Chafee was one, a whole bunch more.
Republicans in power does not mean conservative goals are achieved. Soaring national debt, over 100% increase in education funding, new and expanded entitlement spending, no new drilling or nuclear facilities... the list goes on.
You got that right. We need to attack dims hard b/c that will get us in the news. And not be nice doing it. This would give us some face time before the American people.
For many decades, the Democrats have been influenced and infiltrated by people like Erlich, Train and Muir:
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)
“We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.” — Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund), Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974
“Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.” John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club
The evidence that the Marxists are overthrowing our nation is right in front of us.
Hey, that’s good stuff! Thank you!
I was wandering senate web sites yesterday to see what, if any, opinions senators had about the Supreme Court ruling on guns a day earlier. I felt it was a very good ruling, and wondered which senators disagreed with the ruling.
While visiting the site of Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), I did not find anything regarding the court ruling, but did see a video link regarding ANWR & offshore oil. The video was very good, and if her facts are substantiated, valid talking points in the current energy crisis.
The main points, while McCain, Bush, Cheney & company clamor for opening ANWR & offshore sites for oil exploration, the oil companies are already sitting on federal leases encompassing 68 MILLION acres that should be producing nearly 4.8 MILLION barrels of oil per day right now.
If true, I am angry. That oil is yours, mine, and every other American. It is not right that the oil companies have used their leasing ability to create for themselves a supply monopoly. There may come a time when we need the ANWR and offshore reserves, but I am no longer convinced this is that time when oil companies are presently sitting upon even larger reserves and doing nothing but using the federal leases to monopolize a market and drain money from the pockets of Americans.
Also, what I did not hear in Senator Boxer's presentation was any opposition to drilling. The video gave me much more to consider amidst the current energy debate. Hope the link works: http://boxer.senate.gov/senate/floor_speeches/06242008b.cfm Senator Boxer makes a valid point. What good would it do to issue more oil leases to oil companies involving offshore and ANWR reserves if the oil companies will not drill?
Although I'm no expert, from my own reading on that subject I have come to the conclusion that there are two probable reasons for the unused leases.
1) One is that you have to get a lease even to explore, and many of those explorations have yielded no results.
2) The other is that companies lease land surrounding possible oil sources so that no one else can slant-drill into it, so they are buffer zones.
I can think of no reason why oil companies would beg to drill ANWR if they could more cheaply and quickly drill on leased land they already have. I see no advantage to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.