ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Grand Oil Party: Doc Hastings Announces Fire Sale Of America To His Oil Overlords

By Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Announcing new drill-baby-drill legislation today, Chairman Doc Hastings of the House Natural Resources Committee and his GOP colleagues claimed that the failure to develop domestic oil reserves is contributing to the recent sharp increases in gas prices. However, even their hand-picked witnesses at recent show hearings, such as Richard Newell, administrator of the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, testified to the contrary:

Long term, we do not project additional volumes of oil that could flow from greater access to oil resources on Federal lands to have a large impact on prices given the globally integrated nature of the world oil market.

A new report by the Department of the Interior shows that the oil and gas industry has failed to develop the vast majority of the 34 million acres it has leased from the federal government in the Gulf of Mexico. Those areas are estimated to contain 11.6 billion barrels of oil and 59.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In addition, the report documents that only about five percent of the nearly 53 million acres offered for lease in 2009 in the central and western Gulf was actually leased by industry. In 2010, the comparable figure was 6.4 percent.

The story is much the same when it comes to oil and gas development on federal onshore lands. The oil and gas industry has failed to explore or develop about 57 percent of the 38 million acres that it has leased from the federal government, according to the DOI report to the president. And the industry has taken a pass on leasing about 43 percent of the acreage offered to them over the last 26 months.

None of these facts seem to be reflected in Chairman Hastings’ three new pieces of legislation:

 

 

The trio of bills introduced today would give industry more access to places to drill and would expedite processing of the industry’s permits. The bills do nothing to move along the process on the areas already leased. And they’re not about lowering gas prices; they’re designed to increase oil companies’ profits. Fallow oil leases bulk up oil companies’ proven reserves, a key asset class for their market valuation.

This giveaway doesn’t come as much of a surprise when you look at who supports Chairman Hastings and his Republican colleagues on the Committee. Combined, they have received more than $2.5 million in oil and gas contributions. That money has led to multiple hearings about more drilling and none on expanding renewable energy. According to Politico, Hastings is holding an invitation-only briefing for lobbyists on his legislation.

Chairman Hastings says that his bills will “save American jobs by preventing deliberate government inaction and bureaucratic stalling.” Perhaps he should hold a hearing to ask his friends in the oil and gas industry about their inaction and stalling.

Economy

House GOP: We Have To Cut Foreclosure Prevention Program Because Democrats Haven’t Fixed It Yet

Today, the House is voting on H.R. 839, The HAMP Termination Act of 2011, which is sponsored by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC). The bill would immediately end the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) — the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure prevention program — rescinding tens of billions of dollars in funding meant to aid troubled homeowners. This move comes despite analysts predicting that one million homes will go into foreclosure this year.

But during floor debate today, House Republicans came up with a novel reason to justify cutting foreclosure relief with the housing crisis still burning. They said that HAMP needs to be cut because Democrats haven’t yet done enough to fix it:

REP. PATRICK MCHENRY (R-NC): My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not offered legislation to fix it when they were in the majority. And so we’re left with what is required today, [which] is to root out this federal program.

HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SPENCER BACHUS (R-AL): You haven’t mended it. You’re talking about mending it today. Where is your bill to mend it? Is there a bill to amend it?…You can file the bill, we’ll take a look at it, but we’re ending this failure.

Watch it:

Of course, if Republicans were actually serious about addressing foreclosures, they could suggest their own fix for HAMP. But they haven’t. To the contrary, they have opposed all foreclosure prevention efforts, including bankruptcy cramdown and the foreclosure fraud settlement that’s currently being negotiated by the nations’ attorneys general.

Undeniably, HAMP has suffered from significant design flaws and has fallen far short of the goals that the Obama administration set for it. But the answer is not to eliminate it compltely, leaving homeowners to fend for themselves. There are, instead, several fixes that could be made that would improve HAMP, including allowing housing counselors to directly approve HAMP modifications. See other recommendations here.

And if its really the cost of the program that’s bothering House Republicans, they could support Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) effort to fund foreclosure prevention through a fee on the nation’s biggest banks. “I don’t mean to demonize, but I think Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo and the Bank of America and Citicorp and Morgan Stanley and the large hedge funds, I think they can pay for this,” Frank said.

Instead of adopting any of these fixes, Republicans are simply letting the program disappear, because they believe that all federal foreclosure prevention efforts “need to stop.”

Politics

After Congressional Progressives Ask ‘Where Are The Jobs?,’ GOP Rep. Biggert Says ‘Stop Talking About Jobs’

One of the mantras of congressional Republicans over the past two years has been to ask, “Where are the jobs?” House GOP leader John Boehner (OH) made this into a theme of the campaign last fall. As then-GOP chairman Michael Steele summarized the argument: “Americans are still asking, ‘Where are the jobs?’ … Washington Democrats still have no answers.”

This afternoon, Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and other progressives took to the floor of the House of Representatives to turn this question back on their Republican colleagues. Ellison and the others asked where all the jobs-creation legislation was, excoriating their conservative colleagues for focusing on legislation like terminating the HAMP program, which would do nothing to create jobs:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): “The Republicans’ no-jobs agenda has been exposed, Mr. Chair. The majority has done nothing to create jobs or protect homes. All they do is criticize programs that could use some improvement. Rather, they would get rid of them altogether.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): “[The Republicans] have no plans of their own to address the foreclosure crisis that is hurting neighborhoods and disrupting lives throughout their country. Like the jobs bills they said they would have. We have yet to see them.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX): “Your cities have been impacted positively by the HAMP program. Job growth is picking up. Investing and growing jobs should be the mindset of the American Congress for that’s what we were sent back to Washington to do.”

At one point, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) took to the floor to respond to the progressives. She attacked the HAMP program, urging her colleagues to end it, and signaled that she would oppose progressive amendments to the GOP’s bill for ending the mortgage modification program. Then, she incredulously told her colleagues to stop talking about jobs and focus rather on the substance of the amendments:

BIGGERT: I would urge my colleagues to support — oppose this amendment. And stop talking about jobs, let’s focus on the substance of these amendments.

Watch it:

One would have to wonder what a certain congresswoman who asked at a hearing — on February 25, 2010 — “Where are the jobs?” would think about Biggert’s statement. That congresswoman was Biggert herself. Watch it:

Health

HHS Official: Employers May Move Workers Into Exchanges

The Hill’s Jason Millman is reporting that Joel Ario, who oversees the exchanges for the Department of Health and Human Services, is trying to calm fears that employers would seek to dump their workers into the exchanges once they become operational in 2014. Many conservatives and some employer groups are arguing that the government may be underestimating the shift, but Ario is taking the tact of arguing that if the exchanges provide more efficient coverage, so be it:

“They’ll continue to provide it, and we may wind up with an employer-based system for a long time because exchanges may not develop,” Ario said.

However, if the exchanges prove to be a source for better and cheaper coverage, then employers will be incentivized to scrap their health plans.

If it plays out the exchanges work pretty well, then the employer can say ‘This is a great thing. I can now dump my people into the exchange and it would be good for them, good for me,’ ” Ario continued.

This sounds right, but it’s worth noting that some economists are predicting that the actual shift will be quite mild, since “firms would need to compensate the workers from whom they remove a current benefit.” In fact, a survey of 2,800 businesses conducted by Mercer in 2010 found that employers are “not likely” to stop providing health insurance coverage out of a reluctance of losing control over a key employee benefit. Massachusetts — which has a much more robust employer requirement than the ACA — actually experienced an increase in employer coverage after reform.

After the first 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that “the number of people obtaining coverage through their employer would be about 3 million lower in 2019 under the legislation.” Actuaries at CMS estimated that just 1.4 million would move out of employer coverage.

Politics

Rep. Ron Paul Argues States Can Ignore Constitution By Nullifying Federal Laws

ThinkProgress filed this report from the NICHE Homeschool Day in Des Moines, IA.

One of the most powerful lines in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech was his call for racial unity even in Alabama, a state with “its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.” Indeed, following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case, nearly every southern congressman signed the “Southern Manifesto,” which asserted that states were free to ignore federal laws and directives. Now, 48 years later, the unconstitutional idea that states can invalidate federal laws which they don’t like is making a comeback in conservative circles.

This week, the nullification camp, led by right-wing historian Thomas Woods, got a boost from a sitting congressman: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Speaking at an Iowa homeschool event, Paul told the crowd that “in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.” “That is why,” Paul declared, “I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws”:

PAUL: The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.

Watch it:

Despite Paul’s insistence that nullification is proper and constitutional, Article 6 of the Constitution clearly states that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” That’s why one of our founding fathers, James Madison, argued that nullification would “speedily put an end to the Union itself” by allowing federal laws to be freely ignored by states.

ThinkProgress legal expert Ian Millhiser noted that nullification isn’t just blatantly unconstitutional, it’s “nothing less than a plan to remove the word ‘United’ from the United States of America.”

Yglesias

Endgame

What words were written for:

— All about Richmond, VA.

— Michael Mandel is wrong about productivity in the recession and also wrong about men’s earnings over the past 40 years.

— Cantor says no to additional CRs.

— Commentary’s “Jewish Democrats” talk sounds a lot like the dread dual loyalties to me.

What is graphic journalism?

In honor of Michigan, the only state to lose population in the last sentence, it’s The Get-Up Kids’

  • Comment Icon()
  • Climate Progress

    As Congress Appeases Polluters, Military Arms With Clean Energy For Climate Battle

    This week, the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote on a series of amendments sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats to cripple the federal response to climate pollution. Although these efforts won’t likely escape the Senate, a majority of these supposed leaders are expected to support the dangerous policy of ignoring the fundamental threat of global warming. As Vice President Gore has noted repeatedly, the “climate crisis, the security crisis and the economic crisis have a common thread” — our dependence on fossil fuels. If we continue the status quo, threats will continue to multiply on every front — a fact our military, if not our politicians now in the Senate, now recognizes.

    As A. Siegel has noted at Get Energy Smart, the military brass are working intensely to do their job of defending our nation from the very real threats of dependence on fossil fuels and their world-altering pollution. Furthermore, they’re seizing the economic opportunity the Tea Party Congress has rejected for the nation — rebuilding our forces to be energy smart, with energy efficiency and renewable energy. This week, as Republicans hold hearings and press availabilities to promote Drill Baby Drill legislation and attack climate science, the military is discussing the reality of using energy innovation to address the climate security crisis:

    Today at 6 pm, the Clean Energy Network, DC will host a panel discussion on military energy issues. Entitled Clean Energy Priorities of the Military, the panel’s invitation provides this focus: “the trends, challenges, and opportunities surrounding Clean Tech and the Department of Defense.”

    Today and tomorrow, Johns Hopkins University’s Advanced Physics Laboratory and the Center for Naval Analyses is, for the second year in a row, running a two-day conference focused on the Department of Navy (U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps) and energy and climate issues: Adapting to Climate and Energy Challenges: Options for U.S. Maritime Forces. This includes the heads of Task Force Energy, Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, and Task Force Climate Change, Rear Admiral Dave Titley.

    On Wednesday and Thursday, the Association of Climate Change Officers is hosting a two-day conference on Defense, National Security and Climate Change: Mitigating Risks and Seizing Opportunities in a Rapidly Changing Global Environment. Speakers include former senators John Warner and Gary Hart, Senator John Warner, Assistant Secretary of Defense Sharon E. Burke, and Assistant Secretary of the Army Katherine Hammack.

    On Thursday, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation is hosting an event where the title explicitly points to the military’s opportunity through focusing on energy challenges: Operation Energy Innovation: A Stronger, Smarter Fighting Force. Speakers include Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) and Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA). Forbes has been a nearly party-line voter for climate denial.

    Maybe some of this serious reality will get past the smokescreen of the coal and oil lobby to reach policymakers on Capitol Hill. No matter what, it is heartening to know that there are people who have taken oaths to serve and defend our nation who are actually living up to that pledge.

    Update

    One of Peter Sinclair’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week videos, from last year, shows clearly why the military is concerned:

    Yglesias

    All Politics Is Local: Arab Edition

    In America, election outcomes are overwhelmingly driven by macroeconomic outcomes. And as Max Fischer notes, perhaps we should assume the same thing about Arab politics:

    Though these three states [i.e., Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria] all took such vastly different approaches to the two issues that supposedly drive popular sentiment in the Arab world — the U.S. and Israel — they have endured startlingly similar anti-government protest movements. But if these foreign policy issues are really as important to Arab publics as Assad believes them to be, if they really constitute the key variable in regime stability, then why have these three governments found themselves embroiled in such similar protest movements? Why did Tunisians ultimately rise up against economic restrictions and police brutality? Why did Egyptians call for shutting down the interior ministry and raising the minimum wage, but not ending Mubarak’s alliance with Israel? For that matter, why did they endure decades of Egyptian-Israeli ties, only to finally rise up over totally unrelated concerns? Why are Syrian protesters making the same demands now? Is it possible that Assad, and many of us in the West, have gotten Arab priorities so wrong?

    I wouldn’t even say that we’ve necessarily gotten the priorities wrong as simply failed to ask the question. We are very interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the geopolitics of oil. We’re not really interested in the price of food. But people who actually live there see things differently.

    Politics

    Rep. Sean Duffy Complains About His $174,000 Salary: ‘I Drive A Used Minivan’

    At a townhall meeting in Amery, Wisconsin last week, the “Real World’s” Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) exposed just how out of touch with ordinary Americans he is. According to progressive blog Rightguardia, one constituent — an underemployed construction worker — explained that his wife, a teacher, may have to take a cut in wages if Wisconsin’s draconian budget bill goes through. “I’m just wondering what your wage is and if you guys would be willing to take a cut,” he asked Duffy.

    Displaying that delicate sense of empathy characteristic of conservatives, Duffy whined about his $174,000 congressional salary and his “used minivan.” When the man pointed out his salary was “three times what I make,” Duffy reassured him that “I have more debt than you.” “I’m not living high off the hog,” he added:

    Constituent: But a hundred and seventy-four thousand, that’s three times — that’s three of my family’s — three times what I make.

    Duffy: Well our budget…I moved to cut by 5 percent. I did. You know what, I have no problem..let’s have a movement afoot. I walked into this job 6 weeks ago..um that I worked incredibly hard for. And I can guarantee you or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you.

    With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I’m living high off the hog, I’ve got one paycheck. So I..I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I’m not living high off the hog.

    Duffy is certainly no Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a multimillionaire car alarm mogul. Like many Wisconsinites, he has several kids and, according to his financial disclosure statement, student loans and a mortgage to pay off. But Duffy’s salary is indeed about three times Wisconsin’s (and the national) median income. What’s more, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is 7.4 percent statewide, and 8.2 percent in Wausau, a city Duffy represents.

    But if Duffy wants to “start getting real” and relieve some of that financial burden, he could sell that second home in Iron River, WI he owns.

    Update

    Here’s the video of Duffy at the event — in which he also complains about his government health care package:


    Update

    ,Duffy spokesman Daniel Son responded with the following statement: “Our nation faces a real fiscal crisis and Congressman Duffy is committed to working with his colleagues in the House to face these challenges head on, not score cheap political points.”

    Health

    Top Republicans Don’t Want To Fall On Sword For Paul Ryan’s Medicare Voucher Reforms

    Brett Coughlin of Politico Pro is reporting that House Republicans are reportedly divided about the political wisdom of including Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposal to transform Medicare into a voucher program for future retirees in next week’s GOP budget, fearing that voting to significantly alter the program (and potentially alienate senior voters) makes no political sense if the proposal will go nowhere in the Senate:

    Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor are on the deficit-cutting side of the debate. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan and House Speaker John Boehner are on the other side of the debate, weighing if voting to carve up the Medicare program — only to see it die in the Senate — is worth the political hit, a senior Senate Republican aide and House Republican chief of staff tell POLITICO. [...]

    “I see and appreciate where Chairman Ryan — and Majority Leader Cantor — are coming from on this. I also recall the ugly politics in 1995 and 1996,” the Senate Republican aide said. “The challenge is a group of conservative freshmen in the House who are really concerned about the deficit, but who have never had to face a negative reelection campaign.”…Privately, however, Camp is saying — according to the GOP staffers — that he doesn’t see the wisdom in voting on a plan to dismantle Medicare in the House, only to see it die in the Senate.

    Coughlin notes that the internal divisions could jeopardize the GOP’s ability to present a unified budget and alienate seniors who have come to depend on the Medicare program. And for good reason. Under Ryan’s plan, new Medicare enrollees would receive an annual voucher they could use to purchase health insurance beginning in 2021. The voucher — which does not keep up with health care costs — would initially be worth an average of $5,900 (in 2010 dollars) and increase to an average of $11,000 in 2010 dollars once all age-groups are phased in.

    Seniors, in other words, would pay more. According to this report from CAP, under current law, people with Medicare coverage can expect to pay $2,730 per year ($228 a month) in 2021 for total Part B and Part D premiums. Under Rep. Ryan’s proposal, conversely, new “Medicare enrollees will pay an average of $3,579 for equivalent coverage—a 31 percent increase in their premium for this year.” (See the chart here). As the Congressional Budget has pointed out, “Voucher recipients would probably have to purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums than they would under current law…the federal government would pay [less] for enrollees on a per capita basis, relative to the projections under current law” and “future beneficiaries would probably face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare.”

    Republicans have long tried to distance themselves from Ryan’s proposal. Last February, then House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) described the plan as “his,” saying “I know the Democrats are trying to say that it’s the Republican leadership. But they know that’s not the case.” Ryan has even admitted that the proposal has not attracted substantial Republican support. “While I am proud to have 13 House Republicans co-sponsor the legislation, and have been overwhelmed by the support outside the Beltway,” he claimed, “my plan is not the Republican Party’s platform and was never intended to be.”

    Older

    Switch to Mobile
    ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

    Sign Up