Posted by
Rich on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:05:39 AM
What
a difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a
massive global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with
few GOP members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly
oppose it.
Fast forward to
June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly
30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and
opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had
at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the
largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so
thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate
taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year.
Republicans
were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments.
But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our
amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers
from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the
inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it
was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death.
The Wall Street Journal
aptly noted that environmentalists are “stunned that their global
warming agenda is in collapse.” The paper added, “The green groups now
look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who
gets sand kicked in his face.” The paper quoted a political analyst,
noting that “this issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health
care plan.”
Despite claims
that we must “act now” to prevent a climate “crisis,” the Boxer Climate
Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill,
often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would
instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain.
And
Americans are suspicious of the need for “solutions” to global warming.
A Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 revealed that the American
public’s concern about man-made global warming has remained unchanged
since 1989. According to Gallup, “Despite the enormous attention paid
to global warming over the past several years, the average American is
in some ways no more worried about it than in years past.”
Just
a few days after the embarrassing defeat of the climate bill, the
Democrats were at it again. As the price of gas at the pump continued
to climb, Democrats were proposing yet another energy tax as part of
their “solution” to our energy challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy
bill would increase taxes by $17 billion for America’s oil and gas
producers and increase government bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing
to increase access to America’s extensive oil and natural gas reserves,
does nothing for the promotion of nuclear energy, does nothing to
increase refinery capacity, does nothing for electricity generation or
transmission, and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal. They
are attempting to ignore the basic concepts of supply and demand.
A
major component of the Democrats’ “no” energy bill would reinstate the
Windfall Profits Tax. Democrats want to impose the tax despite the fact
that we tried this almost 30 years ago, with disastrous results. In
1980, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed an excise levy on
domestic oil production. According to a report by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter’s Windfalls
Profits Tax “made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.” If the
Democrats are successful in enacting their “no” energy bill, they will
decrease domestic production and increase America’s oil imports -- the
exact opposite of what we need to do
Until
we explore and develop domestic energy resources and increase domestic
refining capacity, the cost of gas at the pump will increase. As
America faces mounting energy challenges, now is not the time for
politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions.
Oil
and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85
percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with
shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new
offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking
to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with
technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used
by American companies. Exploration and production activities are
currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer
Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil
and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25
years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.
If
President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally
sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today
we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR
each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more
energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion
barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.
The
climate tax debate and the Democrats’ “no” energy bill provide a stark
contrast between those who believe the answer to solving our nation’s
energy crisis is to raise taxes, regulate more, and drastically
increase the size of the federal bureaucracy, and those of us who
believe the path forward should develop and expand America’s domestic
resources. Congress must reject the Democrats’ attempts to increase
taxes and implement back door price controls.
As
my home state of Oklahoma shows, tomorrow's energy mix must include
more natural gas, wind, geothermal and renewable energy, but oil, coal,
and nuclear energy -- the world's largest source of emission-free
energy -- must also be included. Developing and expanding domestic
energy will translate into energy security and will ensure stable
sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.