Posted on 10/07/2005 7:34:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- City leaders today vowed to press on in their fight against H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, as it moves to the Senate following today's close vote in the House. Officials from the National League of Cities (NLC) see the bill as a serious preemption of the historic rights of cities and towns to determine where facilities such as refineries can be located.
"There is no evidence that the location of new refineries has been held up by any actions of local government," said Donald J. Borut, NLC executive director. "In fact, the involvement of local governments in the siting process is the only way to ensure that the wishes and environmental concerns - as well as the health concerns of residents-can be heard."
In a very close vote that seesawed back and forth for more than 45 minutes, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record) (R-Tex), was adopted 212 to 210. "We deeply appreciate the support of the 14 Republicans, one Independent and all Democrats who voted today in opposition to this effort to undermine the rights of local citizens to speak out," said Borut. "Clearly they have listened to the cities and towns and understand that locating a facility as large and potentially environmentally significant as an oil refinery in their backyards needs to be decided at the local level-not by the Secretary of Energy, the President of the United States, or the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington as the bill calls for."
NLC's opposition is prompted by concerns that the bill would:
-- Override state and local zoning and land use authority by stripping away any local citizen involvement and placing it into the hands of Washington decision makers.
-- Discourage local governments from advocating on the behalf of their residents by establishing a "loser-pays" standard. Specifically, the bill forces localities to pay the attorney's fees of the industry if a city loses; however, if the local government wins the case, the industry is not required to pay cities for the expense of the litigation.
-- Reduce the number of possible blends of diesel and gasoline, without regard for the individual needs of localities that depend on these special blends to reduce emissions from mobile sources. This could cause wide-spread increases in emissions from these sources, affecting the health and well-being of Americans everywhere.
"We have alerted our membership to put out a no-holds barred effort to defeat this bill in the Senate," said Borut. "If adopted, this bill would allow the federal government to put a refinery on any piece of federal land it wants or anywhere the oil industry thinks it will be profitable for them, without a thought to the needs or concerns of the citizens in the area. This is not the best way for Congress to help the areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita or to address the serious concerns about price gouging at the gas pumps by the oil industry."
For more information, contact Veronique Pluvoise-Fenton, 202- 626-3029 or Joanna Liberman, 202-626-3042.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Yes, this is a terrible bill.....I love paying for gasoline...I don't like buying clothes or going to the movies...I like visiting the fuel station....so does my wife....
Sounds like a winner to me.
You meet the nicest people waiting in gas lines, I know. ;-)
NIMBY ALERT!
Yes this is a BAD bill, IF it does in fact remove the decision making process from the local people.
There's enough land in the west that the Feds own (unconstitutionally I might add) that they can turn around and sell or give to oil companies for refining purposes.
This coupled with all of the other Federal power grabs lately needs to be stopped and stopped NOW.
Yep, big city mayors such as Ray Nagin.
The introduction of "loser pays" in court cases is worth any drawbacks. We are drowning in lawyers and silly lawsuits. Loser pays would clean up most of it. No wonder the RATS hate it, it will lead to a key source of funding for them removed.
I believe the plan is to utilize closed military bases.
But I could be wrong.
Bottom line is we need more refineries, more exploration while building a strong nuclear infrastructure. Sorry but the enviros have been too unyielding, too nasty, too immature to offer some compromises.
They didn't and surprise, surprise, we are dependent on a-holes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc. To think that all enviromental standards will be done away with is absolutely silly especially if, in regards to refineries, we actually use former military bases. We need to move away from the gulf setting to a certain extent to avoid hurricane damage. Yes it will increase cost but if the new technolgy to tap into oil shale is also allowed then the midwest will play the best central location (also further from attackable shores).
I'm the first to maintain as much control on the local level as possible but the fact is the libs only proceed to strangle any US energy self-sufficiency. This, I agree, is not optimal but is necessary.
Utilizing closed Militar bases would be an excellent idea since the Feds already own the property.
Why?? This is just what the environazis do in the west all the time, only from the other side. What's good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If the econazis can take "public" land out of the tax base and restrict access to elitists like them--and that is a good thing--why can't the government do something that actually does something for all americans?
Don't misunderstand my reasons for opposing this. This isn't about the environment, this isn't about stopping the big mean evil oil companies.
This is about stopping yet ANOTHER power grab by the Federal Government.
I hate that this has to be about refineries because we do need them and we need them badly spread out all over the country.
But we do NOT need an overbearing Uncle Sugar coming into OUR cities, OUR homes and OUR back yards telling us that we have NO VOICE in the matter.
I spent most of my adult life in defending our constitution, it pisses me the hell off to see MY government being the very enemy to that Constitution that I and my fellow Marines, sweated, bled and died for.
It's a hard choice and I don't know what the answer is. But this is NOT it.
BTW I live in Montana, so I am VERY aware of what the environazis have done to us out here. I live with the effects every damned day.
To site a new refinery nowhere close to the existing pipes would be madness...which, frankly, I expect the Feds to do, directly or indirectly, just to keep the pork addicts happy.
The Dems were just mad because they wanted the feds to build, own, and operate the refineries for 'government use and reserves' and for 'emergencies'
Imagine THAT boondoggle!
And the people fighting this are the same ones who whine the loudest about how high the price of gasoline is. But .. they don't want to do anything to solve it.
Like Rush always tells us - there is just no pleasing these people.
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.