Posted on 06/14/2015 9:03:55 AM PDT by Isara
For decades, entrepreneurs in Oklahoma and Texas have looked to the immense natural resources found beneath our states’ soil, convinced that with a dream and a little hard work they could revolutionize an industry. These entrepreneurs have characterized the innovative spirit that has made the sister states places of promise for countless Americans.
We are proud to represent Oklahoma and Texas, respectively, and together we believe we can unleash the American energy renaissance that is already underway. To do so, we need to scale back the government, restore state and local control, and welcome technological advancement to tap into the resources beneath the soil.
The first step to promoting growth is reining in excessive federal regulations that are stifling jobs and economic growth. Previous posturing notwithstanding, just last week the Environmental Protection Agency released a historic, four-year-long study that concluded hydraulic fracturing has “not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.” The EPA is by no stretch of the imagination a conservative institution; if anything, it has repeatedly attempted to hamper the energy industry through untenable environmental claims. Yet, even the EPA, after examining 950 papers and reports and other data points, could not find evidence that hydraulic fracturing harms water.
Yet even when science dispels myths, such as the claim that fracking harms water, the Obama administration demonizes the energy industry and has aggressively discouraged fossil fuel development and use, to the detriment of consumers and economic growth. This week, the president joined other international leaders and declared their intent to “decarbonize” the economy by the end of the century. In other words, the president is proposing to eliminate the energy resources that nearly every family uses to switch on a light or operate a microwave, regulations that would cost the average household hundreds of dollars each year. According to this president, traditional, affordable energy sources have no place in our cities or towns.
Instead of imposing crippling regulations, we must adopt a robust energy agenda that will help protect our national security and let the people do what they do best — innovate, explore, and create good-paying jobs for millions of Americans. The American Energy Renaissance Act, which we have introduced in Congress, will enable people to do just that.
The American Energy Renaissance Act returns the power back to the states, giving them the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. If states choose not to permit fracking within their borders, they are free to make that choice. But states on the forefront of this revolution, such as ours, should not be hampered by a restrictive EPA. The act puts an end to the EPA’s war on coal, streamlines the process for upgrading refineries, and enables companies to build infrastructure like the Keystone Pipeline. It encourages energy development by allowing offshore exploration, broadening development on federal lands, and expanding energy exports such as liquefied natural gas and crude oil exports.
We should not shy away from alternative energy sources if they are viable and affordable. In fact, Oklahoma generates about 15 percent of its electricity from wind power. But an all of the above energy strategy should truly mean all of the above, including traditional energy sources, without any dictates or interference from the federal government. Unfortunately, the track record and rhetoric of this administration does not elicit confidence that they will pursue this strategy in good faith.
The energy industry’s future should not be dimmed by a burdensome and overbearing EPA. For the past six years, we have witnessed the results of such crushing regulations and rules, and if we keep going down this path, American jobs will continue to disappear while household costs rise.
Now is the time to welcome the same ingenuity that propelled the pioneers of America’s energy industry to break through unimaginable boundaries and develop the natural resources we are blessed to possess. If we do, we will empower the private sector to create millions of good, high-paying jobs and give more Americans the opportunity to succeed.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., introduced the American Energy Renaissance Act in the 113th and 114th Congress.
Not a problem. You do an excellent job of refuting the lies on here.
OOOO, such a big man to make threats. Trust me, I am shaking...no really, I am. I can hardly type.
How did Cruz betray us? Look, you talk about ignorance and you act if TPA only happened now. I suggest you do your homework. Since TPA empowers Congress, perhaps you should ask the RINO’s why you are concerned Barry would get carte blanche...oh wait, that isn’t your meme. sorry.
You are a coward...you have yet to say who you support. You obviously have an agenda, so spill it.
Thank you. You too. I love Cruz...the trolls are trying to create chaos...it ain’t working, but I love a good fight.
Lowering the voting threshold does not empower Congress you moron.
Take away the right to offer amendments doesn’t empower Congress.
Taking away the filibuster does not empower Congress.
Now I know why you don’t usually argue any facts, because when you try you look pathetic and like an ignorant fool.
Why don’t you call me a coward again? You ignorant fool.
Ok, let me type slowly for you...
The bill, whether you like it or not, would require 51 votes. That means, that if Barry got the power, it would take GOP people to vote with him.
That makes sense to you right? Do I need to draw a picture for you of Congressional/Senatorial numbers to make it easier for you?
Now, if a majority is needed, and Republican are in the majority, you should blame...who exactly?
Oh, Cruz...never mind.
Many more battles ahead of us, but your efforts are appreciated. I live in West Tennessee, since I see you are from our beautiful state also.
Let me type even slower for you. Before TPA it was 60 votes.
Do you understand that 51 is less than 60? So it takes power away from Congress and does not empower it.
There are also the other powers taken AWAY that I listed in my previous post.
And I blame far more than Cruz. I blame all the RINOs, but he was supposed to be different and he is not. Even a lot or RINOs are not out there arguing and giving speeches for TPA, but Cruz is.
ALSO. I would like to apologize for calling you a fool in my previous post. I believe folks should be able to disagree without hating each other, but calling me a coward first did not help. My apologies.
“If you’re getting paid $20 for every negative Cruz post, I assume you’re buying a Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat or a BMW M3 on Monday. Am I close?”
NOPE, you are about as far off as you normally are.
It's been used for 50 years to get trade agreements passed.
Do people have a reason to be fearful of Obama using it? Yes. But the real problem is the secrecy regarding TPP.
yes. Most of my concern is that we are giving this to the most lawless and destructive President we have seen in a very long time, if not ever in our history.
Also, I believe this is far more than any agreement before in history. I have little doubt Obama wants it so bad because he sees it as a way to hurt the US again.
Hi TNMOUTH,
I suppose the thing that always irks me (in life, in discussions, and in courtrooms) is when someone makes non sequitur jumps to change the subject, or doesn’t answer the question asked. The article was about American energy independence. odawg started an ad hominem attack on one of the authors on a totally unrelated topic. Then, in his/her response to me was that he/she hadn’t read the article. Clearly then, he/she was looking for a way to be critical and not address the issue of the article.
On another matter, as I understand the criticism of Cruz was that he offered an amendment and then voted for the TPA. I suppose I’m a simpleton, but I always thought that America was about trying to build a better mousetrap. The fact Cruz was trying to make the bill better does not mean that the underlying bill was faulty. The fact that Obama supported it is not a determinative factor for me. I just don’t make decisions based upon endorsements or who might be carrying the water.
I’m more troubled that the terms are not public, as promised by Boehner and McConnell. So, I guess the jury is still out for me on the TPA. But, I certainly cast no aspersions to Cruz.
Gwjack
Amen
Lot of posters who signed up during Romney’s run for office are trolling Cruz threads.
You are correct. I hail from Middle TN. Glad to have you on board.
We are Volunteers...let’s keep the spirit alive.
BTW, Cruz is winning our state ;-)
So, once again, you fail to answer...
WHO is a better choice? Who is your choice?
Do you think that if Cruz or any Republican won the race, that they’d get 60 votes for passage?
It isn’t Cruz to blame for your RINO types to cave...but, you already know this.
Until you answer who you support, I stand by my coward comment...and make NO apologies.
Then you are in fact an ignorant fool and have no class. Enjoy looking like a classless person.
Oh and by the way. Please add the fact that it is looking like TPA raises taxes on small business now too.
Add that to your love of Cruz. You know, the Ted Cruz that voted to raise taxes. Yeah. That one.
Right, TPP is not public...Cruz has publicly called for it to be public.
The problem these people have is that if they want the bill to be public, and they hold up Rand or Sessions as their guys, why can’t they release it? They too, are voting on a secret bill. They might be wrong as well, we just don’t know.
Cruz isn’t stupid. He has been our champion for a long time. The more information that comes out, the more right he becomes. With TPA, it has been around for decades. The problem for most of the trolls, is that they fear Barry Hussein will be too powerful. Well, hell, we haven’t done much to stop him yet. Either way, we need a majority to give him power...it isn’t Cruz doing this, but the GOP-e.
Keep in mind too, something that the anti-Cruz people don’t mention, is that the unions OPPOSED TPA. Why did they oppose it? They were going to get EXTRA kick backs under TPA if it was defeated for TAA. Cruz also added amendments to hinder immigration powers and Executive powers.
Ok, so give me your other options...
BTW, when did TPA start? Can you answer this or are you just content to blame Cruz?
Also, are you aware that if TAA, the first part of TPP passed, that Unions would get a kickback. THIS is why Unions opposed TPA...because they didn’t get their due.
So, Cruz hurt the unions...but, I guess you want to give them more power. Hey, if you need me to do more homework for you, please ask.
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.