Energy & Environment

This issue is important to farmers across the country. Including Agriculture in this rule just doesn’t meet the common sense test.  Farmers can’t control dust.  This amendment will ensure the protection of these farmers, so they can go about their daily responsibilities of feeding the world without the fear of prosecution.

I first instituted the National Parks Fee Demonstration Program back in 1997, which had widespread support, and even in my bill I cautioned against expanding the program to other federal lands, mainly because of what we’re seeing now – a fee that doesn’t put money back into the site being impacted. Parks are a completely different animal than other federal lands.

I had opposed the recreation fee being expanded beyond the national parks and now my worst fears are being realized – higher fees with no guarantee that the money is going back to the site being impacted.

An $80 fee is certainly higher than what folks should have to pay to recreate on federal lands. My concerns about the price of the pass are echoed in a study conducted by the University of Wyoming, which showed very little tolerance for a pass priced above $70.

If there’s a budget problem in our land management agencies, let’s get to the root of it – address it head on – and not put budget shortfalls on the backs of recreational visitors.

Farmers and ranchers are currently facing the highest energy costs on record. In fact, farmers’ fuel expenses for 2005 exceeded their 2004 fuel expenses by 37 percent or roughly $5 billion dollars.

We are particularly concerned about high natural gas prices, because they factor into fertilizer, irrigation and heating costs. For example, this spring, the average price for ammonia fertilizer for crop production was $521 per ton … more than double the cost in 2002. That’s quite a hit to the pocketbook, any way you look at it.

It’s clear that high energy costs are going to remain an unfortunate fact of life, unless aggressive efforts are made to promote exploration and development of domestic natural gas resources. That is why we are urging House members to cast “yea

I urge my colleagues to reject S. 3711, the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing bill. Even if you support the lifting of the OCS oil and gas leasing moratoria and greater drilling in American Coastal waters, this measure should not be considered under suspension of the rules, a procedure which bars amendments and limits debates to only 20 minutes per side during the last week of a lame duck session of Congress.

This measure, which is limited to oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, also hardly constitutes comprehensive energy legislation to deal with the price of motor fuels and natural gas. It is a “bumper sticker

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a bill written by my friend and colleague Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., presents us with a unique opportunity to put a modest amount of new energy back into the pipeline, while establishing a fair and equitable precedent of revenue sharing that we're hopeful can serve as a durable template among other states along the coast.

Make no mistake: The challenges American energy users face today are profound, and the consequences we face as a result of a continued delinquency by Congress in crafting a comprehensive, production-based energy bill are severe. This bill does not represent the answer to all our problems. It does not put us on equal footing with our international competitors - countries like China, India, and Russia who have been producing energy offshore for generations. But it does establish a worthwhile precedent - and it does put additional supplies of essential energy online. And because of that, it will receive my support on the House floor this afternoon.

The House is expected to vote on the Senate offshore drilling bill S. 3711 this morning. Procedurally, leadership plans to bring the bill to the floor Tuesday under suspension of the rules which would require a two-thirds majority for passage.

This is one last gasp for Big Oil and their allies in Congress. This election year Americans spoke out about a new direction for the country, including on energy policy. It’s time for Congress to stop appeasing Big Oil and to embrace real energy security and enact smart energy solutions that decrease our oil dependence, clean up our environment, curb global warming and create jobs.

In letters to Congress, press statements, and formal comments submitted to the Administration, nine coastal governors have consistently opposed major new legislation that would open new coastal areas to offshore drilling. It's a bad deal for Americans. Opening our nation's coastline to destructive drilling will only add to the billions in profits already being made by Big Oil, do nothing to lower gas prices for American families or energy costs for American businesses, and will keep our nation dangerously dependent on oil. Instead of committing to destructive drilling off our beaches, Congress could be adopting smart energy solutions that would help wean Americans off oil and save money at the pump.

The House has the opportunity to pass a bill extending the protections Senator Martinez and I sought against oil drilling off Florida’s coasts until 2022, and at the same time ensure oil rigs won’t interfere with our military’s testing and training exercises in the Gulf of Mexico.  In the next Congress, I’ll support extending leasing bans for the entire Outer Continental Shelf and I’ll work on energy proposals that will lessen our country’s dependence on foreign oil.

At this juncture, it is vitally important that the House agree to pass the Senate bill. While its bill is even stronger, with the results of this past election, this congressional session may be the only chance we have for years to come to produce more oil offshore. This legislation opens up 8 million acres to production – all of which is at least 125 miles from the Alabama Gulf Coast – and it is historic in that for the first time the Gulf Coast states will get a significant share of the oil and gas revenue from production. This could mean millions of dollars in revenues for Alabama in years to come as production increases. I want to compliment Congressman Jo Bonner for his tireless work to end the stalemate by encouraging the House leaders to accept the Senate version. As a practical matter, there is nothing more Congress can do this year to help America reduce its dependence on foreign oil than passing this legislation. To let it slip away would be unthinkable.

Passing the Domenici-Landrieu Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711, when Congress reconvenes this week for the lame-duck session offers America a great opportunity.

Targeted toward increased energy production in the Gulf of Mexico, the bill was coauthored by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and passed the Senate in August with an overwhelmingly bipartisan 71 to 25 vote. It would open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to new oil and natural gas production. Experts believe this new area, now partially under moratoria, holds enough crude oil to keep 2.7 million cars fueled for 15 years and enough natural gas, a resource necessary for developing alternative fuels, to sustain 1,000 chemical plants for 40 years.

Of the revenues, 37.5 percent would be dedicated to coastal protection projects in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama. Another 12.5 percent would fund the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which benefits land conservation in all 50 states. The remaining 50 percent would be sent to the federal treasury. Inland states currently receive half of the revenues from energy generated on federal lands within their borders while coastal states receive virtually none of the revenue produced off their shores. The legislation fixes this inequity, creating an onshore offshore partnership for the Gulf Coast states that serve the nation by producing energy. Read more...

This scares me. Nine unelected people who have likely forgotten any college physics, mathematics, or statistics that may have been forced upon them are about to dictate the nation's energy policy.

That's an extreme take on Mass v. EPA, but not an outlandish one. If the Supreme Court sides with Massachusetts, it can only do so by labelling carbon dioxide, the meta-respiration of our civilization, as a pollutant, requiring regulation by the EPA to the point at which it no longer significantly affects human health and welfare.

Further, if Mass v. EPA is overturned, that's only the beginning of the judicial regulation of what cars we drive, the price of electricity, and the cost of making things. That's because, by asserting that carbon dioxide exerts a significant negative effect, then it will be claimed that whatever regulations EPA proposes require amelioration of its ability to cause net harm. That will be construed as the need to limit future global warming to about one degree celsius.

Though it may be opaque to the Court, the mathematics on this are actually transparent. Such a temperature target requires a virtually immediate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of about 70%. We will have judicially mandated the impossible. Read more...