“We need a bipartisan energy bill that allows immediate drilling of offshore oil,” said Bill Dew. “This bill has been through no committee, was allowed no amendments, and received no discussion. This is neither bipartisan nor comprehensive like those energy bills that Jim has persistently voted to block from discussion. It allows no new refineries, considers no nuclear energy, and does not support clean coal production, a resource plentifully found in Utah. ”
Bill Dew also points out that he doubts that coastal states will invest heavily in oil production if they have no financial incentive. “Why would Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia allow offshore oil drilling with no benefit to the State’s tax payers while states like Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas get vast revenues from their energy production?”
States with high levels of energy resources, such as Alaska, Mississippi and Texas, supplement state budgets with tax revenues from oil extraction, using the extra funds to pay for schools, teacher salaries, and infrastructure.
The bill passed by the House has multiple problems and was opposed by Utah Congressmen Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon. Among the problems, the bill includes constitutionally questionable issues inserted by Jim Matheson. The bill fails to open up offshore drilling within 50 miles of shore, according to the Deseret News, “where most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil is located.” Further, states would not receive revenues from the offshore drilling, effectively robbing them of much needed resources.
“Jim is either election year pandering and knows that coastal states will never allow offshore drilling without compensation, or he does not understand where the offshore oil is found,” said Alan Crooks, General Consultant to the Dew Campaign. “Either way, this bill is a sham, not a solution. Jim Matheson is hurting Utahns by selling them short.”
“We all understand that sometimes you vote for bills that are a compromise- but this bill is not a compromise Jim had an opportunity last night to instead vote for a true bipartisan bill that had a much more comprehensive approach to energy. Jim instead chose to vote along his democratic party lines,” said Crooks.
Last night Matheson voted against a motion that would substitute a bipartisan energy bill (H.R. 6709) in place of Pelosi’s “No Energy” bill. H.R. 6709 currently has 135 cosponsors, including 39 Democrats. H.R. 6709 does not permanently ban offshore drilling within 50 miles of the coast, where 90% of the known oil reserves exist and would allow states to revenue share for the offshore oil they would produce. Both bills would allow oil shale development, but H.R. 6709 has fewer restrictions on such development.
The partisan bill that Jim Matheson did vote for excludes several key components to the energy solution. The energy bill purports to support offshore drilling, but fails to remove the ban on offshore drilling. Further, the legislation complicates the opportunity for future legislation to access offshore oil. Nancy Pelosi’s “No Energy” bill:
-Creates a permanent ban on drilling oil in most locations including on the Gulf coast and 97 percent of the 10.5 million barrels off of California’s shores.
-Changes profit-sharing laws with states and requires states to shoulder costs of drilling without any returns, eliminating the incentive for states to allow offshore drilling.
-Places a permanent ban on any oil drilling within 50 miles of the coastline.
-Ignores ANWR, Clean Coal and Nuclear Power, three sources that are necessary to make America energy-independent.
-Increases taxes and mandates on energy companies, increasing cost at the pump and in utilities.
The legislation also gives billions in handouts to “green organizations” headed by men like former vice president Al Gore while leaving states without any revenue sharing ability.
By Stan Lockhart