Posted on 07/01/2008 8:25:17 AM PDT by sopwith
Thank you for contacting me regarding high fuel prices. As someone who also finds this to be unacceptable, I appreciate hearing from you. I understand your frustration with high fuel prices, which are causing hardship on consumers in New Hampshire and nationwide. Households and businesses are seeing a growing share of their money being eaten up in fuel costs. Hearing about the real life hardships that you and many other hard-working Americans face due to escalating energy costs helps to emphasize the urgency of this problem and illustrate why we must continue to work on finding real solutions. Unfortunately, the major forces that are primarily causing this escalation in fuel prices - limited refinery capacity, increasing global demand, government restrictions on oil and gas production, and political instability in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa -cannot be resolved overnight. That said, today's high energy prices are simply not sustainable; therefore, I believe that Congress must be aggressive in its efforts to address this serious issue. We must enact short-term and long-term policies that will address the high cost of gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil. With regard to the short-term, on June 4, 2008, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and I introduced bipartisan legislation (S. 3080) which would reduce the tariff on imported ethanol which would in turn allow U.S. refiners to purchase cheaper ethanol from foreign sources and could help lower gas prices. As you may know, federal law requires most gasoline in this country to contain around 10 percent ethanol. Imported ethanol is especially important for coastal states, like New Hampshire, since almost all domestic ethanol is produced in the Midwest and is costly to transport because it cannot be moved through a pipeline. Imported ethanol from Brazil and other friendly nations can be provided to these coastal states more easily and at a lower cost. Currently, this legislation is pending before the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am not a member. With gas prices continuing to rise, it also makes no sense to continue the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which has almost reached full capacity. On April 29, 2008, I, along with fifteen other Senators, wrote to the Administration requesting that the Department of Energy (DOE) temporarily stop deposits of domestic crude oil into the SPR in an effort to ease record high gas prices. On May 13, 2008, I also joined 96 of my Senate PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER colleagues in supporting an amendment to the Flood Insurance Bill (S. 2284), which will temporarily suspend deposits into the SPR for the remainder of the year or until oil reaches the price of $60 per barrel. On May 16, 2008, the DOE announced it would follow Congress' direction on this matter and would not accept additional deposits into the SPR. Furthermore, we also must diversify and expand our domestic energy production, which is why I believe that restrictions on oil and gas exploration on certain federal lands need to be re-examined and modified. So long as such exploration is done in an environmentally sound manner, I feel that increasing domestic production is a better alternative for increasing supplies and lowering prices than buying more and more oil and natural gas from the Middle East and other unstable parts of the world. It is for these reasons that I co-sponsored an amendment to the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 (S. 2284), offered by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-ICY), which would have produced up to 24 billion barrels of domestic oil, along with pursuing alternative energy technologies. The McConnell Amendment would have also allowed oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Unfortunately, on May 15, 2008, this amendment failed by a vote of 42-56. Over the long term, it is critical that we reduce our nation's increasing consumption of oil and natural gas, especially from foreign sources. By adopting policies of conservation and fostering the production of renewable energy, we will be able to make our nation more energy independent and lessen the burden of fuel costs on consumers. Recently, Congress took an important step toward achieving these goals. On April 10, 2008, the Senate, with my support, agreed to an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), which extends various renewable and clean energy tax credits. Among other things, this amendment extends the renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC) through 2009 and the solar energy fuel cell investment tax credit (ITC) through 2016. This amendment also extends the residential energy-efficiency property tax credit through 2009, as well as the credit for energy-efficiency improvements in existing homes through 2009 and new homes through 2010. Additionally, last year, Congress passed, with my support, and the President signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140), which, among other things, raises Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks - for the first time in almost 30 years - to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This legislation also promotes renewable energy production and energy efficiency in homes, appliances, and lighting. Moreover, to assist our seniors and low-income families during the harsh winter months, I continue to advocate for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding and have pushed for various legislative proposals to increase heating assistance in a fiscally responsible manner. For example, during debate of the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), I sponsored an amendment that would have eliminated wasteful agriculture spending and instead provided almost $1 billion in additional LIHEAP funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. Unfortunately, this amendment was not brought up for a vote during consideration of the Farm Bill. In total, New Hampshire has received $22.3 million in LIHEAP funds for FY2008, which represents a $3.5 million increase over the FY 2007 allocation. I continue to pay close attention to this important issue, working to ensure that New Hampshire receives adequate funding for LIHEAP. Lastly, with many oil companies posting record-high quarterly earnings, I find these sky high profits troubling considering the amounts of assistance that the federal government has provided to the industry. This is why I have supported efforts to reduce the amount of assistance these companies have received in the past. For example, I have consistently supported proposals which would require that companies with existing OCS lease contracts on which they are paying no royalties (as a result of a government error in the late 1990s) renegotiate these contracts if they want to bid, on new oil and gas leases on the OCS. I also believe that Congress should consider reviewing the tax incentive structure for oil and gas companies. Since 2004, the five major integrated oil companies have earned more than $420 billion in profit, a 150 percent increase in profit compared to the previous four year period. As I continue working on policies that will reduce energy costs and steer our nation to a more balanced and sustainable energy future, I appreciate having your input. Your thoughts on this issue are important to me. JG/jrg
Sorry lost the paragraphs.
DRILL HERE.....DRILL NOW!!!!!
Seems so simple, doesn’t it?
Were it not for the halls of government, a good percentage of the population would wither away due to their inability to adapt and survive.
He mentions relaxing tariffs on imported ethanol. Has it occurred to them to do away with the recently enacted ethanol requirements?
Discussing gasoline prices over the weekend with family and friends, and the "obscene profits" by the Big Bad Oil Companies (less than what government "makes" on each gallon), prompted this speculation:
The oil company executives have been taken to the Congressional woodshed repeatedly for public humiliation by the real idiot creators of the problem, Congress. If not the creators, certainly not the solution!
The thought occured to me: are there no Oil Company executives with cojones? One appropriate response at a stupid question would make the grandstanders look like total idjits...
Congressman Nummnutz: Sir, why aren't you drilling the leases that you have instead of wanting to drill where you know oil exists? Why do you collect obscene profits and give your executives unconscionable 'bonuses?'
Executive Drillbit: Congressman... we estimate that if we eliminated all profits, dividens and bonuses, it would reduce the price of gasoline 27c per gallon.
How would that help?
** crickets**
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.