• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bipartisan Energy Compromise Bill

A

Anonymous

Guest
Bipartisan group unveils energy compromise bill
Fri Aug 1, 2008 7:08pm


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Friday aimed at forging a compromise between Democrats and Republicans deadlocked in the Senate over energy issues.

The legislation focuses on moving Americans to alternative energy, conservation, and increasing domestic oil production.

Opening up more areas for oil production has been a major stumbling block in negotiations to pass energy legislation in Congress.

Republicans support lifting bans on drilling in restricted areas, while Democrats want oil companies to use land already available and favor selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Calling themselves the "Gang of 10," the Senators are trying to bridge that divide.

Their bill would require the government to open some additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico for development and would allow drilling off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia if those states give permission. A commission would be created to recommend areas to be opened for leasing in the future.

Offshore production would still only be allowed 50 miles from the shore, and all the new oil produced would have to be used domestically.

"The American people have been clamoring for us to come together and that is what this group did," Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, told a press conference.

A Senator from Florida, however, said the package did not go far enough in increasing domestic production and objected to the proposal to open up areas in the Gulf of Mexico without his state's input.

"A comprehensive solution includes oil shale production, exploring ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve), and allowing states to decide where to develop offshore resources," said Mel Martinez, a Republican. "This proposal falls short of meeting those goals."

The legislation sets a goal to transition 85 percent of America's new vehicles to nonpetroleum based fuels within 20 years by providing billions of dollars for research and development and helping U.S. automakers produce vehicles that do not run on gasoline.

U.S. consumers would receive up to $7,500 in tax credits when they buy cars that run on alternative fuels. Renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits would also be extended until 2012 to promote investment in those industries.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed support for the bipartisan effort, even though he said he did not agree with all of the measures.

"I am hopeful this plan can begin to break the current legislative stalemate on the Senate floor," Reid said in a statement.

The group is led by Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican. The Senators said they plan to pay for the $84 billion in spending in the bill by eliminating $30 billion in tax breaks for energy companies and by ensuring the federal government gets a fair share of revenue from the Gulf of Mexico drilling leases.

The legislation did not address excessive speculation in energy futures markets, which many Democratic lawmakers have blamed for helping to push up oil prices.

Lawmakers adjourn on Friday for a five-week August recess, so they will have to tackle the package when they return to Washington.

Leaders from both parties have agreed to hold a one-day energy summit to help develop a plan for energy independence.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0133060020080801?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.


Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.


-----------------------------------------

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators _ five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.


The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.


Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.


The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.


"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."


Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_offshore_oil/2008/08/01/118359.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The “Gang of 10” is led by Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and includes Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. Johny Isakson (R-Ga.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

Spoken like a true socialist punish a sucessful business and then give the money others that been losing their butts because they have not kept up with consumer wants and needs. :roll:

Kind of like mandating ethanol, and then giving money to them in a losing venture just because it was the green thing to do. :mad:

I would rather pay $5.00 per gallon for gas and the Government stay the heck away. Once they get involved in things it always screws it up. That is why we are in the mess today, they get involved in deciding where and when and how oil companies can drill, or how much sulphur there needs to be in diesel, or where we can build refineries etc......

You let the Government decide things and all it does is get us to the point we are today!

And all the time they are taking this money and giving it to a dead end, oil prices will go higher and gas prices will go higher to compensate for the punishment of the oil companies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

Spoken like a true socialist punish a sucessful business and then give the money others that been losing their butts because they have not kept up with consumer wants and needs. :roll:

Kind of like mandating ethanol, and then giving money to them in a losing venture just because it was the green thing to do. :mad:

I would rather pay $5.00 per gallon for gas and the Government stay the heck away. Once they get involved in things it always screws it up. That is why we are in the mess today, they get involved in deciding where and when and how oil companies can drill, or how much sulphur there needs to be in diesel, or where we can build refineries etc......

You let the Government decide things and all it does is get us to the point we are today!

And all the time they are taking this money and giving it to a dead end, oil prices will go higher and gas prices will go higher to compensate for the punishment of the oil companies.

Well like I've always said-- if you want to go back to a time when government didn't have their nose stuck into something in this country- and wanted to return to a true free market system-- you'd have to go back to 1789 when Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed, Congress passed, and George Washington signed the first tax to pay our war debt we owed-- the Whiskey tax- which brought on the Whiskey Rebellion which didn't succeed..

In order to live in a civilized world you need a form of government to make decisions for what they, hopefully following the wishes of the public, consider the best direction for the mass's - and governments require income- and income means a form of tax.....

The oil/energy companies brought all this on themselves for not being forward thinking enough and then for greedy profiteering rather than looking/working toward a solution....As energy suppliers they could have been investing those profits into alternatives/infrastructure to keep energy supply sufficient rather than sticking it in their pockets with ever growing multi billion $ profits....I don't feel sorry for them one bit...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The oil/energy companies brought all this on themselves for not being forward thinking enough and then for greedy profiteering rather than looking/working toward a solution....As energy suppliers they could have been investing those profits into alternatives/infrastructure to keep energy supply sufficient rather than sticking it in their pockets with ever growing multi billion $ profits....I don't feel sorry for them one bit...

First off I am sure the oil companies thought they were doing what they were suppose to, that being making money for their stock holders. And shooting for an 8% return on their dollar is pretty modest goal to have. Seeing how many other companies make way more profit margin. Probably even some Cattleman out there that make more than 8% return.

Secondly should cattleman be thinking about how to invest their profits into Chicken since chicken is a healthier product than red meat? I say not, Cattleman do what they do, that is try to make as much money as they can with spending the less they can raising Beef. They have no obligation to worry about producing an alternative source of protein!

Thirdly, you are saying that Oil companies should have looked for alternative solutions to a problem that does not exist. The only problem with oil supply is Liberals will not let Americans have the oil, coal and nuke energy that is there to have. If you look at all of the resources available to America we have more at our finger tips than all of the Camel Jocks combined. Why would a company invest in alternatives when there is no need for alternatives, you saying the Oil companies owe it to the Tree Huggers to put themselves out of business?

You silly Rainman!
 

Texan

Well-known member
Aplus, you've got to be the biggest dumbass I've ever seen. You keep on making these good posts trying to use common sense to communicate with these libs. You're a dumbass. :lol:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Texan said:
Aplus, you've got to be the biggest dumbass I've ever seen. You keep on making these good posts trying to use common sense to communicate with these libs. You're a dumbass. :lol:

I know a Smarter person would go turn on Dancing with the stars and give up! :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Yeah, too bad the weekend is here and you'll miss out on getting your news because The View isn't on. :lol:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Texan said:
Yeah, too bad the weekend is here and you'll miss out on getting your news because The View isn't on. :lol:

I still have a couple on Tivo that I have not gotten to watch yet. :wink:

And I only watch it to support fellow Conservative and Hottie Elisabeth Hasselbeck :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Aplus
Secondly should cattleman be thinking about how to invest their profits into Chicken since chicken is a healthier product than red meat?

Now where in the Liberal world did you come up with that one at.. :???:

You definitely must not only be star dancing but star gazing if you believe that statement......You been listening to the Bush government lobbyist bought out experts too much......

Support USA BEEF- Run over a Chicken!!!!!!!!!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Aplus
Secondly should cattleman be thinking about how to invest their profits into Chicken since chicken is a healthier product than red meat?

Now where in the Liberal world did you come up with that one at.. :???:

You definitely must not only be star dancing but star gazing if you believe that statement......You been listening to the Bush government lobbyist bought out experts too much......

Support USA BEEF- Run over a Chicken!!!!!!!!!!!

Its an example of how silly it is that oil companies should be investing in solar power.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Aplus
Secondly should cattleman be thinking about how to invest their profits into Chicken since chicken is a healthier product than red meat?

Now where in the Liberal world did you come up with that one at.. :???:

You definitely must not only be star dancing but star gazing if you believe that statement......You been listening to the Bush government lobbyist bought out experts too much......

Support USA BEEF- Run over a Chicken!!!!!!!!!!!

Its an example of how silly it is that oil companies should be investing in solar power.

Why do you think many in my part of the country grow wheat :???:
Its called "diversification"-- and many this year chose to put the resources where the demand was....

You go tell Robert Mac that chicken is healthier than beef..... :roll: :wink: :lol:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Aplus


Now where in the Liberal world did you come up with that one at.. :???:

You definitely must not only be star dancing but star gazing if you believe that statement......You been listening to the Bush government lobbyist bought out experts too much......

Support USA BEEF- Run over a Chicken!!!!!!!!!!!

Its an example of how silly it is that oil companies should be investing in solar power.

Why do you think many in my part of the country grow wheat :???:
Its called "diversification"-- and many this year chose to put the resources where the demand was....

Did anyone make them grow wheat? And did you or others think bad of those that chose not to grow wheat?

Point is business do not have obligation towards doing something that puts themselves out of business or even diversification. Oil companies are actually pretty diversified, but they do not owe anyone and have no obligation to develop alternatives to what they are in business for in the first place.

Come on Rainman!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well I hear few giving them any sympathy-except for a few of the new conservative "neocon" Big Business backers that support multinational corporatism over small business...

Personally my feelings are that sympathy lies in the dictionary between sh*t and syphillis-- and they'll get none of those from me...
 
Top