Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview today that she would not allow a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives to allow offshore oil drilling. President Bush rescinded an executive order banning such drilling earlier this week.
When asked in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer if she would allow a vote to allow offshore drilling, Pelosi said, "I have no plans to do so." Here's the transcript:
BLITZER: There are a lot of people out there, including plenty of Democrats, who say one of the most important things to do right now is to resume offshore drilling off the coast of California, Florida, elsewhere around the United States. Take a look at this poll that CNN/Opinion Research Corporation recently did.
“Do you favor offshore drilling?” Seventy-three percent said yes. “Do you oppose offshore drilling?” Only 27 percent.
You’re among the 27 percent. … Are you afraid if this comes up for a vote in the House you will lose, given the support for offshore oil drilling among these so-called blue dogs, or moderate Democrats, who will join with Republicans?
PELOSI: Afraid is not a word that is in my vocabulary.
BLITZER: Will you let it come up for a vote?
PELOSI: You know, I mean, the point is, is we are putting forth the alternatives that we need to put forth, and that is, drill, use it or lose it. …
BLITZER: So let me get — will you allow this issue, offshore oil drilling, to come up for a vote on the floor of the House?
PELOSI: We’re going to exhaust our other remedies in terms of increasing supply in America by…
BLITZER: So the answer is no?
PELOSI: I have no plans to do so.
This follows a vote in the House that defeated a Democratic bill to require energy companies to explore their existing oil and gas leases or lose them. The so-called “use-it-or-lose-it” bill (HR 6515) was the Democratic leadership’s response to a drumbeat of Republican calls for legislation to open up new public lands and offshore areas to oil and gas drilling.
It was a retread of a prior bill (HR 6251) that Democrats rushed to the floor ahead of the July 4 recess under suspension of the rules, an expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds vote for passage. The 223-195 vote on that bill June 26 fell 56 votes short of that target.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi in essence said, "Drop dead, America! Get used to high gas prices!"
4 comments:
I wish I had some sticky labels with a picture of Nancy Pelosi with a comment saying "Thanks Nancy for not allowing a vote on offshore drilling and doing every thing you can to keep gasoline prices high!" that I could leave on the pump every time I fill up.
I wish I had a sticker that Said "Thanks Republicans for voting against the Drill Act" and in effect do nothing to help us get access to easy oil.
The Drill Act was just a political ploy by the Democrats.
As Vincent Gioia wrote in The National Ledger:
"Would oil companies deliberately refrain from getting oil where they could? Isn’t it logical to assume that oil companies have not taken action on these tracts because it was not cost effective to do so? There are reports that these areas either do not contain oil or the cost of extraction is too great to be commercially viable. Only those with some nefarious agenda would try to convince the public that oil companies are intentionally foreclosing themselves from an opportunity to obtain more oil, especially at today’s prices."
The more the Democrats resist increasing domestic oil drilling, the tighter the noose around their necks will be come November. People will blame them for the high prices, and rightly so.
"Would oil companies delibrately refrain from getting oil where they could?"
Yes. Yes, of course they would. Oil is a commodity with limited supply. Not only is this limited in how much can be moved but in how much there exists. Because this relationship exists it would be very rational for oil companies to increase the value of oil harvests by limiting the released supply, knowing that in doing so they are maximizing the profits that can be made on remaining oil.
As for alternatives, alternatives are all well and good, but even if alternatives become available a large portion of the world will continue to industrialize after their conception and implementation in modern nations assuring that even if the Oilman's Apocolypse comes to fruition that they will continue to profit from remaining oil deposits.
Any fictions about the altruism of oil companies should be discarded on two accounts. The first being they are at first a capitalist endeavor which exists to profit and increase profit. Second in the buying-out of independent stockholders.
This is not to say that companies won't eventually produce and sell more oil, but rather that as long as they dominate oil on the commodity market they will continue to do so in a way that encourages large profits in the present and future.
Post a Comment