IL-16

Six Illinois Republicans Vote Against Compromise Energy Bill

Josh Kalven — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:15:53 -0700

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.

Republican Breaks Ranks To Endorse Abboud

Mose Buchele — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:15:48 -0700

Bob Abboud, Democratic candidate in the 16th Congressional District, is getting support from some unlikely places. Last week, Major Gen. John Borling, a member of John McCain's national finance committee and an elected Republican delegate from Illinois, endorsed Abboud at a meeting of union members, elected officials, and constituents.

Here's what Borling had to say (taken from an Abboud press release):

With gas prices out of control, the economy weak, unemployment a problem—especially in Northern Illinois-- crushing national debt and skyrocketing health care costs, the 16th District and America need new, visionary leadership. I have endorsed Bob because he has extraordinary judgment and an intelligence that we desperately need in Congress. He is the right man for the job, I support his candidacy because its time for a change in Illinois. [...]

We need to have political representatives who honor their word, display good judgment, and are smart enough to identify and help solve the pressing problems of Northern Illinois and the nation. The nation suffers from career politicians who believe they are owed lifetime appointment ... Approval ratings of the Congress hover around 13 percent and we need to turn the affairs of government back over to citizen servants who will truly earn our respect and approval through effective bi-partisan action. Bob Abboud is that kind of man.

Borling is a decorated Vietnam war veteran who spent time as a POW with John McCain. His endorsement is significant not only because he is a Republican, but also because it shows how important economic issues are in the 16th District race. While Borling disagrees with Abboud's stance against the Iraq occupation, his statement clearly indicates that he trusts the Democrat over Republican incumbent Don Manzullo to solve the region's economic downturn.

Abboud Rebuts The Idea Of An Oil Drilling Quick-Fix

Mose Buchele — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:23:17 -0700

A new poll by the Pew Research Center indicates that Americans are beginning to become more supportive of the idea of domestic oil drilling. Driving this shift in public opinion is the idea -- advanced by numerous Republicans -- that increased drilling on U.S. lands will quickly put an end to high gas prices at home. But it's not be that simple.

In an interview today on WRHL's Michael Koolidge Show,16th District Democratic congressional candidate Bob Abboud pointed out why -- contrary to suggestions by his opponent, GOP Rep. Don Manzullo -- drilling is not a quick-fix. Abboud, a nuclear engineer, is running as an energy pragmatist and he raises some very practical concerns. Here's what he had to say:

Internal mp3

ABBOUD: The real question that I ask is: “What does it do for you?” If you look at drilling crude -- crude is a globally traded product. So anywhere that you drill -- whether domestically or on the other side of the globe -- it doesn’t necessarily say that that crude is going to wind up here in the United States.

The second problem is we’re running at essentially 100 percent refinery capacity here in the United States. We have virtually no spare capacity. And so, you know, you can work and create all kinds of new supply of crude, but it’s certainly not going to create new supplies of what you really use and that’s gasoline, diesel fuel, and ethanol.

A recent Time article backed up Abboud's first point:

[T]he U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production.

As this election cycle continues we will hear more and more about domestic drilling as a cure-all to our energy woes. It's good to see Democras such as Abboud taking that myth on from an economic (as well as environmental) standpoint.

In a new finding that underscores Abboud's point, the Center for Economic and Policy Research has just released a study about how john McCain's offshore drilling plan would impact fuel prices at home. The answer? It wouldn't:

Senator McCain’s proposal would have no impact in the near-term since it will be close to a decade before the first oil can be extracted from the currently protected offshore areas. The EIA projects that production will reach 200,000 barrels a day (0.2 percent of projected world production) at peak production in close to twenty years. It describes this amount as too small to have any significant effect on oil prices.

Conversely if the U.S. had continued on its policy of creating more fuel efficient cars at the same rate that it did from 1980 to 1985 our current fuel savings would be phenomenal.

If fuel efficiency had improved at this rate, then the average car on the road would be more than 50 percent more fuel efficient than is currently the case (32 miles per gallon compared with 20.2 miles per gallon). If increased efficiency did not change the number of miles driven each year, then this would imply a reduction of more than one-third in the amount of oil used for the country gasoline needs. This savings would be equal to approximately 3,300,000 barrels per day.

Meet Bob Abboud

Mose Buchele — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:20:18 -0700

The "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is a well thought-out and carefully articulated proposal to disengage the U.S. military from the conflict and refocus on diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. The plan has the backing of over 50 candidates running against GOP House incumbents this year. But so far, only one Democratic congressional challenger in Illinois has endorsed it -- Bob Abboud, who is challenging 16th District Congressman Don Manzullo.

It's no surprise that Abboud is the first one on board. He's an ideas man. In our image-obsessed political environment, it's refreshing to see someone with his background make a run for the House.

Like Rep. Bill Foster in the 14th District, Abboud is a scientist. After a stint in the Navy he worked for the Argonne National Laboratory and Commonwealth Edison as a nuclear engineer. He left ComEd after 20 years to start his own successful research and development lab.

A cursory look at Abboud's website shows that he is applying a scientific approach to his platform. For nearly every policy issue, he has a clearly articulated plan replete with analysis and clearly defined proposals (sometimes even charts and graphs). While Abboud could turn off some voters if he dives into full-blown wonkiness, his ability to provide solid and often ambitious policy proposals is a welcome change at a time when many are looking for fresh ideas.

On Iraq, Abboud has endorsed the "Responsible Plan." To help small businesses, he has proposed a six-point policy that includes the creation of business owner bargaining cartels to lower the cost of employee health insurance. To confront the energy crisis, Abboud is pushing the creation of an American Power Authority, a new, infrastructure-oriented, public-private partnership dedicated to solving America's oil dependence and confront global warming.

It's not surprising that Abboud, running as an underdog in a Republican district, is not a traditional lefty. As an engineer, he is comfortable with nuclear energy in a way that might turn off some environmentalists. His law-and-order stance on immigration reform lacks any plan for how to address the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country. And he is yet to spell out his proposed remedy to the health care crisis.

But agree or not with his stances, Abboud has demonstrated a willingness to put forward some ambitious proposals and discuss them with voters. He encourages people to call him or email him on his website. This race hasn't been receiving much coverage in the Illinois media or on the blogs, so we encourage you to take a look for yourselves.