Yesterday, the U.S. House passed the Democrat-sponsored Comprehensive Energy Security Act by a 236-189 margin. The bill would release 70 billion barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, allow offshore drilling over 50 miles from the U.S. coast, roll back tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, provide tax credits for renewable energy development/conservation, and require utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from alternative sources.
All 11 Illinois Democrats voted in favor of the measure, as well as GOP Reps. Mark Kirk and Ray Lahood. Meanwhile, the six remaining Illinois Republicans -- Peter Roskam, Judy Biggert, John Shimkus, Don Manzullo, Tim Johnson, and Jerry Weller -- opposed the bill.
Despite taking part in the GOP's "drilling is the only answer" antics in August, Roskam explained his nay vote this way: "Any bill that ignores nuclear, anti-idling conservation and basic research is no comprehensive energy bill." Biggert toed a similar line, emphasizing the bill's exclusion of nuclear power in a press release yesterday. (Could we be witnessing the start of a "Nuke Baby Nuke" movement?)
Yet Rep. Shimkus' response really takes the cake. He too was one of the many Republicans who railed against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier in the summer for her decision to adjourn the chamber for August recess before holding a vote on offshore drilling. At the Illinois state fair on August 12, he lambasted the Democrats for "doing nothing." And an August 14 article by the right-wing CNSNews.com quoted him as saying he welcomed Pelosi's suggestion at the time that she was open to increased offshore drilling as part of a larger plan:
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said he would like to see some sort of deal worked out with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that allowed drilling but obviated a showdown.
“We’re in a position right now of the Democrats trying to figure out what to do, an energy bill that addresses the needs presented today,” Shimkus told CNSNews.com.
“Let’s have a vote. I would rather have a comprehensive energy plan. Speaker Pelosi mentioned she would be open to more drilling and exploration. We would like to follow up. She should come back to the floor, so then we wouldn’t have to worry about the moratorium or a presidential veto,” he added.
So what did Shimkus do yesterday when Pelosi "had a vote" on a bill that allowed "more drilling and exploration"? Ironically, he tried to adjourn the House before the vote could be held. Twice.
He also took to the floor to criticize the bill, singling out the lack of any provision "to advance coal use." Holding up a chunk of Illinois coal, he asserted: "Speaker Pelosi hates coal. Hates it!" It's worth a watch:
If you skip ahead to the 3-minute mark in the above video, you'll see Rep. Manzullo take the podium. Rather than defend his vote against the bill by citing the need for more focus on nuclear or coal-powered energy, Manzullo claimed that the measure "really continues to keep those [offshore] areas closed." He then went on to advance the false suggestion that increased drilling off of our coasts will provide "breathing time" while we develop clean energy technologies:
Until these technologies come on line, we have to increase our supply of oil to give us the relief we need, to give us the time that we need. We have enough oil now in order to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years. Does it mean we use it up all? Of course we don't. We simply need this as an opportunity for a breathing time until we can develop these new technologies.
The idea that increased offshore drilling will provide relief faster than a serious commitment to renewable fuels and alternative automotive technology is ludicrous. Here again is Architecture 2030's wonderful graphic showing how the benefits of offshore drilling really represent a drop in the bucket -- a drop that won't actually hit the bucket in full until about 2030 (click image for larger version):
Back in August, Grist's David Roberts summarized the Capitol Hill energy debate this way:
Democratic leaders have signaled that they are willing to meet Republicans halfway in order to pass a comprehensive energy policy. Republicans have refused, demanding a vote that would do nothing but serve the interests of their oil company donors.
Last night's events only reinforce this storyline.
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:17
Josh, you failed to mention that Democrats did nothing more than pass a sham vote that excluded 80% of the off shore oil. Once again the dems have proven to be a complete failure. But it iwas obvious that your article was a yellow journalist piece.
Poor Poor Oilmen (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:31
What's the REAL sticker here for these naysayers? Rollbacks on the tax breaks that those poor, starving, homeless petroleum barons are currently enjoying.
That's who is beating down these Republicans doors and threatening to withhold all that nice contribution money.
Josh Kalven on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:40
Anon 4:17 -
Nowhere in the above post do I assert that the Republicans got everything they want. That's the nature of compromise. But instead of simply voting against the bill, they basically threw a tantrum on the House floor yesterday, repeatedly attempting to adjourn the chamber so that no vote could take place. That's a bit rich considering all the uproar among Republicans when Pelosi adjourned the House for August recess.
Watching (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:42
Republicans chanting "Drill Drill Drill" is like people chanting "Horse and Buggy Horse and Buggy!!" outside Henry Fords plant.
The Technology is here and the time is now to roll forward into our future rather than sitting stubbornly on our hands, watching our children choke and our earth become inhabitable.
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:46
Impeach Nancy Pelosi.
Weatherhawk (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:52
I guess most people haven't figured out that when they voted in bush and posse they were voting for 50 more years of oil.
I know the big petroleum guys are trying to burn their 50 yr oil leases before their time runs out and people get wise to them - or pollution in major cities is so bad they can't walk outside without a face mask or O2 tank.
But you know what? They may have to just suck it up (just like they have made us suck up all that pollution over the years) and get over it - and stop blockading Renewables.
HemiHead66 (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 15:42
Some people just don't get it. They don't care about gas and oil prices, they care about profits. The run up in oil prices is because of Wall Street corruption. They took out the regulation in the market and let the speculators run wild. When Pelosi tried to pass a bill to stop the speculation the Republicans killed that to. Leaving our markets unregulated is like having a license to steal. Right now their naked short selling every Financial Institution that has money problems, forcinging them to go bankrupt. The SEC has been calling for a temporary ban on naked shorting of banks for months, but I guess it makes the corrupt Wall Street trash to much money to stop. It's kind of funny to hear the SEC talking about a temporary ban on something that's 100% illegal. If ya call them up freaking out like I did, they'll tell ya it's illegal. But don't bolther asking him why are the Wall Street criminals allowed rob us blind, because he won't tell ya that he's one of Bush's Boys that gets to break all the laws he wants, whenever he wamts.
E. Weber (not verified) on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 06:18
Anonymous Coward, did you forget that we can get more than 20% of the oil by using that 20% of land? If you get into continental shelf oil in one area, you can get the oil from adjacent areas as well. I could explain the science of an oil derrick to you, but you'd probably roll your eyes at my puny facts just like you rolled your eyes at this article. For a dummied-down, non-partisan discussion of the issue please refer to the Milkshake scene in There Will Be Blood. If you think that's not applicable here, then why did Bush state that we need to offshore drill in Florida before Cuba starting drilling in the ocean? Because he wants that oil for the US and Cuba could "drink our milkshake." If you can get at that oil from Cuba, the 50 miles offshore that this bill requires derricks to be is not going to stop us from getting at the other oil in the area. It sounds like the "complete failure" here is your complete failure to understand how oil drilling actually works...or do you know, but the truth doesn't happen to match up with your party politics?
Philosophe Forum on Fri, 09/19/2008 - 06:11
John Shimkus is such an embarrassment to Illinois. The only reason Chicago Dems allow him to remain in office is the entertainment value -- no threat. He is also wrong about the legislation. It includes a provision encouraging the use of coal: Advances the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to come up with a cleaner way to use coal.
For a member of the NATO Caucus representing us internationally, his drill baby drill mantra is proof of how clueless he is. [Paolo Scaroni, the chief executive of the Italian oil giant ENI] On U.S. offshore drilling: These are areas that have not been drilling at all. There is certainly some potential. But to me the biggest potential in America that is not exploited is energy savings. There is such an immense opportunity.This is the man IL-19 voters keep re-electing. He protects sexual predators, does not care about it, and blames seniors for the deficit. An obvious lack of integrity.
ALISON, MPA
http://philosopheforum.blogspot.com/
"Responsible Leadership Serving the Public Trust"
Post new comment