House GOP Members Urge Delay on ANWR

Associated Press via Fox News ^ | Aug 11, 2005 | AP

[PolishProud]

House GOP Members Urge Delay on ANWR Thursday, August 11, 2005

WASHINGTON — Two dozen House Republicans, including three committee chairmen, have asked Speaker Dennis Hastert not to use a congressional budget procedure to clear the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

They said in a letter to Hastert, R-Ill., that the budget process "is an inappropriate venue to be debating this important environmental issue" and warned that it would further complicate already difficult budget issues.

"We believe the debate on opening this unique land to oil and gas exploration should be done outside the budget process," said the group led by Rep. Jeb Bradley (search), R-N.H., in an Aug. 4 letter made public Wednesday.

[madison10]

From what I hear, the reserves in ANWR won't affect the price of gas; there just isn't that much there.

Isn't there more oil in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Florida & California? Untouched. Heard that it's rather hard to get at. Is that true? or are the governors of those states putting the brakes on for environmental/vote reasons?

[Vaquero]

Does any of these friggin morons realize we are at WAR and the location of the place we are at war at is in nations that compromise the worlds richest petroleum producers....

Were these RINO's born with their heads up their collective asses.....

[Rockitz]

Refineries, refineries, refineries...

We haven't built a new refinery in America in 30 friggin' years...

We have numerous refineries in our backyards here in LA LA land and we have the highest gas prices in the country. Of course, that may just be a price-fixing ploy by the oil companies to maximize profit in a large market.

[Nathan Zachary]

Isn't much there? You've got to be kidding! Although not as big as Alberta's oil sands, there are huge deposits there that can be extracted using existing technology used in Alberta, which is pumping over 800,000 barrels a day now, which flows mostly into the USA.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Gutless.

[RobFromGa]

So that's five of the 24

Jeb Bradlet (NH) ringleader
Dave Reichert (WA)
Sherwood Boehlert, Science Chairman (NY)
James Sensenbrenner, Judiciary Chairman (WI)
Thomas Davis,Government Reform Chairman (VA)

[Nathan Zachary]

That's another aspect I forgot, the huge number of jobs it would create. Alaska will have more people in it than it did in the gold rush days.

Eviro weinies are pushing TV comericials every ten minutes against this already. They even play them in Canada.

[kittymyrib]

WHO ARE THESE IDIOTS??? What are they waiting for...$75/bbl oil? NONE of these "representatives" deserve re-election in '06 and those of us in their districts need to tell them this in no uncertain terms!

[CharlesWayneCT]

Fortunately, ANWR isn't (yet) an entirely party-line vote. There are democrats who will vote for ANWR.

However, they won't vote for the Budget, because that IS a party-line vote. And the republicans will vote for the budget, for the same reason.

And here is the political problem. These republican congressmen have probably run campaigns as being against drilling in ANWR. If they vote for the budget, their opponents will say they voted for drilling, broke their promises, and it will make it hard for them to get re-elected.

I further speculate that the reason Tom Davis (virginia) is in this list is because he is responsible for getting reublicans elected, and he sees a problem here.

The democrats who say they are for ANWR but vote against the budget could theoretically have the same problem, but they can probably point to things in the budget to justify their no vote (easier then justifying yea votes).

That said, I'm writing my congressman (Tom Davis, ugh) to express my strong displeasure. These republicans should argue that they WERE against ANWR, but the democrats obstructionism required this budgetary maneuver.

I don't care if we never get a drop out of ANWR, we should explore and drill it if the oil companies think it is worth their time. There is NOTHING about ANWR that justifies shutting it off to exploration. Nothing at all.

Environmentalists should support ANWR because each barrell we pull out of thier using our best, cleanest technology is one less barrel we buy from another country, where they don't care about the environment and are destroying it.

[kellynla]

and you should know why we have the highest prices...
it's called supply & demand...
just turn on your television and look at the cars lined up back to back on the freeways from SF to SD.

gas stations make a dime a gallon and it's still cheaper than milk and cheaper than what we were paying in the 80's(adjusted for inflation)

btw we have fewer refineries today than we had 5 years ago

[kittymyrib]

Absolutely...the federal government OWNS all the rights to any water more than 3 miles off shore, with the exception of Texas. Because we were a country when we entered the US, we kept our rights to the tidelands up to 12 miles from our shores. That's why most of our drilling platforms are pumping TEXAS oil, not US oil. Our feckless government will sink the millions of gas-consumers and wreck our economy for the sake of a few hundred wacko enviro-nazis when they could be drilling right now off CA and FLA, as we've been doing for 75 years off the Texas coast. The states that refuse to drill have only the right to govern the first 3 miles. They have NO right to say "boo" about the water beyond that point.
It belongs to all the citizens of the USA.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Again the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) have raised their two heads to oppose what should have been done long ago, drill for oil in Alaska.

Higher energy prices do not bother these elite rich. One also suspects that Arab money might just be the motive for putting more obstacles in the way of lower fuel prices and less dependence on Middle East oil.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Again the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) have raised their two heads to oppose what should have been done long ago, drill for oil in Alaska.

Higher energy prices do not bother these elite rich. One also suspects that Arab money might just be the motive for putting more obstacles in the way of lower fuel prices and less dependence on Middle East oil.

[Thom Pain]

Raise your hand if you think that you or anyone in your family will ever visit ANWR.

Raise your hand if you think that we will soon be held hostage by Wahabbi control of Saudi oil.

I thought so.

[painter]

From what I hear, the reserves in ANWR won't affect the price of gas; there just isn't that much there.

Bull!!There is between 8-30 billion barrels of oil there.

I an SOOO sick and TIRED of this LIE that keeps being pushed around by the environmental KOOKS.

[Nathan Zachary]

We COULD get by without Saudi oil. It's less than 10% of our imported oil. Japan, Europe, the UK, France, Asia should be more worried about mad Mullahs taking over saudi oil, they are the ones who depend on it far more than we do.

We could crank out more from Iraq for example, or squeeze more out of Alberta. Build some friggin' refineries and process some heavier crude.

[OldFriend]

I just called Hastert's office and said that he must keep his promise to bring this up when congress reconvenes.

I suggested that if those republicans want to vote to keep us dependent upon Saudi Arabia for our energy, LET THEM VOTE so we can see who they are.

[OldFriend]

Guess the congressman from New Hampshire thinks heating oil prices won't be an issue in his state.

Let him vote NO....and ANWR and then explain his reasoning to his constituents this winter.

[NC28203]

>>>btw we have fewer refineries today than we had 5 years ago

But because of expansion of existing plants we have greater capacity.

[thackney]

Raise your hand if you think that you or anyone in your family will ever visit ANWR.

Of course, I plan to visit it while working in the Oil Fields...