Energy Bill Saved For Next Year (Daschle stalls ANWR)

news.yahoo.com ^ | 11/27/01 | H. JOSEF HEBERT

[finnman69]

Energy Bill Saved For Next Year
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate action on energy legislation, and a likely confrontation over whether to allow oil drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, is being put off until early next year.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Tuesday he is committed to bringing an energy bill up for floor debate within the first weeks after Congress returns in January.

Daschle has said that other pressing matters such as economic recovery, national security in light of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and remaining government spending bills, leave no time to deal with energy this year.

It is ``not only my expectation, but my commitment that we will take the bill up during that first work period'' next year, meaning before the Senate's recess for Presidents' Day in mid-February.

Congress is expected to recess in mid-December and return in January.

Senate Republicans have accused Daschle of blocking consideration of energy legislation to avoid a heated debate over development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. A number of Democrats have vowed to filibuster any attempt to open the refuge to oil companies, which has been a key element of President Bush's domestic energy development strategy.

``It's a great concern to me and a number of senators that we are not going to be able to consider energy policy for our country before the end of the year, especially in view of the fact that we see now continuing uncertainty about what is going to be done by OPEC countries,'' said GOP leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Republicans have argued that legislation is needed to spur domestic energy development and ease U.S. reliance on oil imports including those from the Persian Gulf. Democrats have maintained that most of the provisions in an energy bill will be aimed at long-term measures and should not be rushed through in the final weeks of the session.

Amid talk of an energy crisis, the House last summer passed a fairly broad energy bill. But its plans to follow with a series of measures aimed specifically at the electricity industry, a key part of a comprehensive energy blueprint, were sidetracked by the events of Sept. 11.

Since then, energy prices across the board from oil and natural gas to gasoline and electric power have declined dramatically with plenty of supplies, easing the crisis atmosphere that prevailed less than a year ago.

[Republican Wildcat]

a more accurate headline would have been: Democrats stall national security improvements until at least next year

[Republican Wildcat]

LESS dependant on foreign oil by increasing fuel efficiency standards, advocating alternative energy sources, conservation, etc.

That would accomplish making more expensive, less safe products and also would not diminish our dependence one iota. No thanks.

[JohnGalt]

In truth, the oil that would ten years from now, coume out of Alaska would do very little in terms of affecting the cost.

The real issue is that this issue splits the Democrats between labor and greens.

Nothing wrong with dragging this one out.

[wjcsux]

The Dumbocraps are Marxists. "Alternative energy sources" have basically turned out to being the equivalent of pissing money down a rathole. The bottom line is cost. Petroleum is the cheapest form of energy, and will be for years to come.
Bottom line, Dumbocraps=Marxists=Environmentalists. The goal isn't "energy independence", it is total control of all private property and peoples lives.

[wjcsux]

Wrongo! Coal can be used as a clean energy source and we have lots of it. Approximately 1/3 of the cost of the construction of a coal fired powerplant is in making the plant conform to environmental laws. I don't see any problem with giving companies tax breaks in developing resources such as coal, uranium or petroleum. We have the cleanest environment of any nation in the world. The reason? We can afford it because of our capitolist economy.

[Republican Wildcat]

Less consumption of oil would not make us any less dependant on the source of the oil. That's pretty cut and dry. Such a scenario where we quit using oil is centuries away, so your argument is irrelevant regardless.

It's also a known fact that to comply with so called "efficiency" standards, the products are made lighter and more dangerous. Many highway deaths would not occur if were not for this.

[Republican Wildcat]

Bottom line : Republicans = corporate fascism = greed.

Good. You just finished off your credibility, so I won't have to waste anymore time refuting your 'arguments'. You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye!

[Keith]

not to mention employment for all those union coal workers...this is what cost Gore W. VA, usually a solid Democratic state...plenty is being spent on alternative energy, mostly by...yep...oil companies. Because they AREN'T truly OIL companies, they are ENERGY companies. If hydrogen is the way to go in the future, and I know Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia thinks so, then they want to be there. Right now, they are still struggling with how to store hydrogen in a car so that every traffic accident doesn't look like the Hindenberg disaster. But they keep working on it. That is how capitalism works. In the meantime, there are two ways to spur that kind of alternative energy research...One--have the gov't control it through grants and tie it up for years in red tape (The Democratic party's choice) or give INCENTIVES through tax breaks (The Republican party's preference). Frankly, I prefer neither, but the more free market way is through tax incentives.

Phrases like "corporate fascism" are ignorant because they assume that corporations don't operate in the best interests of their shareholders OR their employees...a mindset which has it's root in the economic ignorance of the socialists of the 60's. Corporation reflect the interests of BOTH. And without employed employees and happy shareholders, capitalism doesn't work. Employees lose their jobs, and shareholders sell the stock until the company ceases to exist. (Witness the death of all the dot-coms. Capitalism is brutally efficient in this). So I guess we know where this guy, who has obviously spent too much time in our socialist higher education system, comes down on this issue. I'm so glad that our younger people are wising up, because it will take years to take our brainwashed products of our colleges and universities our of our society through the cemetary. It seems that they are resistant to the lessons of economic history.

[lavaroise]

Daschle has said that other pressing matters such as economic recovery, national security

The economy? Who is he kidding? ANWR is about the economy. It's the oil stupid.

[mwl1]

Time for executive order on ANWR and recess appointments to the federal bench. Enough is enough. Way past time for GWB to play hardball.

[deport]

Looks like ANWR exploration was Dashed until next year.......

[pabianice]

>>Daschle has said that other pressing matters such as economic recovery, national security in light of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and remaining government spending bills, leave no time to deal with energy this year.

Does he really think people are that stupid? What greater influence on the economy than long-term energy stability?

[Eva]

The left has been having a collective hissy fit over the fact that their environmental group-think issues are now seen as trivial partisan bickering. The left built their entire support system around disparate interest groups, held together by the single issue of environmentalism. 9-11 changed all that. These groups now have a much more important common demonator, pride in their country. Environmentalism is no longer the end all and be all issue that it used to be.

[conqueror]

Capitalism and supply side economics have given us this great free land of abundance that we live in. Socialism has given the world shortages, command economies and slavery. Which do you prefer?

[college_kid]

You're right-- in general, conservation is good (maybe that's why about 60% of VP Cheney's recent energy report emphasized conservation). That said, your "supply/demand" argument is not appropriate for the ANWR debate. While reducing our consumption will reduce our demand, it will not reduce the cost of consumption (thanks, OPEC). We rely on OPEC for about 60-65% of our oil.

Thus, when looking @ the US economy as a whole, OPEC's pricing policies have SUBSTANTIAL influence over our economy. Incidentally, IMO, it's not a coincidence that the President's 2 'best friends' on the international scene are Vicente Fox & Vlad Putin, the 2 leaders who between them could render OPEC useless.