One year ago today, Congress smartly allowed the ban on off-shore drilling to expire. After months of urging Congress to take every action at its disposal to increase the supply of American-made energy, I was thrilled to celebrate Energy Independence Day 2008. 
 
However, one year later, we have made no progress.  First, the Obama Administration put an abrupt halt to plans already in place to open up the outer continental shelf and public lands in Utah to energy exploration.  And, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced it could be 2012 before the administration even decides whether it will consider moving forward.
 
Washington is not only not making progress; it is, in fact, sending us further from achieving energy independence than even before.
 
Instead of increasing the supply of American made energy, Congress is pushing a national energy tax, Cap and Trade, that would increase the cost of energy and kill jobs.  In fact, a study by the George C. Marshall Institute, which reviewed a wide range of studies and analyses of the cap and trade legislation, found that the price of energy paid by the American consumer would jump:  5-15% for electricity, 12-50% for natural gas, and 9-145% for gasoline.  The White House’s own numbers show that cap and trade would cost the average American family an additional $1761.
 
The American people shouldn’t have to wait for another summer of $4-gas for the Administration and the majority in Congress to do the right thing.  Energy independence is a matter of fiscal prudence and national security.  And, an all-of-the-above energy strategy – which includes exploration of off-shore oil and natural gas and shale oil deposits in the Mountain West – is the way to achieve real energy independence.

A couple months back, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government." 

CBS stated that an " EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Lisa Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'"  The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.

In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

Well, now we get word that the EPA may shut down the office in which the internal report originated -- the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE).

It seems that if you stand in the way of the EPA and their overtly over-the-top global warming agenda that restricts your use of energy, you're going to pay the price.

As Americans hit the road for their family vacations this summer, they're undoubtedly noticing the money they leave at the gas pump.  AAA's Fuel Gauge Report has the national average at $2.58 for regular gas.  That's a far cry from the $4.11 we were paying a year ago.  But, the need for an all-of-the-above strategy for energy independence remains just as great now as it did then.

So, it's puzzling that the Obama Administration is trying to restrict our ability to tap into American oil and natural gas resources.

Robert Bryce, Managing Editor for Energy Tribune, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 7, 2009 that President Obama is calling for the elimination of two tax incentives that encourage oil and natural gas exploration.  President Obama calls them "unjustifiable loopholes" for big, bad oil and gas.  The facts show that these two tax provisions more than pay their way all the while opening up American supplies that make us more energy independent.

One allows for the expensing of "intangible drilling costs," which are things like wages, fuel, and pipe.  The other provides an allowance for percentage depletion, so well owners can deduct a portion of the value of the production of their wells.  Together, these two provisions make up the bulk of the total $1.92 billion in federal oil and gas subsidies.  An investment banking firm, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., analyzed the impact of eliminating the intangible drilling cost tax incentive and found that it alone could lead to an increase in the cost of U.S. natural gas by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet. 

But, together, these tax provisions helped us to make advances in energy technology and to tap into natural gas reserves in Texas and Pennsylvania that were previously thought to be too expensive to reach.  A report by the Department of Energy this April found that these newly available resources total 649 trillion cubic feet of gas.  That is the equivalent of 118.3 billion barrels of oil, which is more than the proven oil reserves of Iraq. 

As Bryce points out, "Simple arithmetic shows that eliminating the drilling subsidies that cost taxpayers less than $2 billion per year could result in an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices."

When you're gassing up the car for your next family outing, think about what it will take to make energy more affordable and energy independence more attainable.  It's got to be an all-of-the-above strategy.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, also referred to as cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, or the national energy tax, on the premise that if we don't act now to cut carbon emissions, our planet's environment will incur irreversible damage.

Now, we know that cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous economic policy, resulting in higher costs for every single American on energy and all manufactured goods. It is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy that will serve merely as a huge revenue booster for the federal government. We know that.

So supporters of this legislation claimed that we had to pursue this disastrous public policy because science says we must do it to save the environment. Enter the EPA, and its new administrator Lisa Jackson.  You’ll recall that the EPA made a similar announcement not long ago, making an endangerment finding and stating that it would have to regulate carbon dioxide if Congress didn’t.

Last week, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government." 

CBS states that "the EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'"  The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.

In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

But, wait, there’s more.

If we go back to January of this year, it was the EPA's Lisa Jackson who said, " I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

It seems to me that Jackson substituted ideology in place of scientific integrity in this case. If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate. But in rushing through a major policy initiative of this White House and Congress, I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action.  

If our Congressmen actually read this 1,200 plus cap-and-trade bill that will impose massive energy taxes on businesses and consumers -- and for that matter, every single American, then they would come across this section: "Designation and Registration of Greenhouse Gases."

Essentially, this section lists seven greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, and a catch all, “other” which can be designated by the Administrator of the EPA at some later date with a citizen petition for consideration of the next generation of gases. (pg. 543)

What this means is that if you and your friends have an issue with a certain gas that you think should be a greenhouse gas, and you can generate enough support on a petition, you may be able to get that particular gas banned.  

Get ready for another couple of knocks on your door from the greenhouse-gas-of-the-month club.

Let's be clear, cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous policy for you and every single American that will result in higher costs on energy and all manufactured goods. After all, I can't think of anything produced that doesn't involve the use of energy – Director of the Congressional Budget Office couldn’t think of anything that would be impacted either when he testified before Congress earlier this year. Let's hope enough lawmakers come to their good senses and defeat this awful piece of legislation when it comes to the floor later today.

It appears the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax will be on the House floor for a vote this Friday. This legislation is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy and despite Democrats’ best attempts to frame it as a necessary measure to stop global warming, cap-and-trade is merely a gigantic tax and huge revenue booster for our federal government to allow them to keep spending and fund more government programs.

No matter which analysis of this bill you look at, it means higher costs for all Americans. The CBO predicts that the rise in prices would hit low-income households the hardest as these homes spend a larger fraction of their income on energy needs compared to those with higher incomes.  It will especially impact those Americans living in Midwest states who get most of their energy from coal-fired utilities and have large manufacturing sectors.

One Minnesota company speaking up against this cap-and-tax bill is Holiday Stationstores, headquartered in Bloomington, MN. They have serious concerns about the low carbon fuel standard in this bill and its effects on the Upper Midwest.

They shared their concerns in a letter to Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, at the time this bill was reviewed by his committee:

"…Minnesota has among the cleanest burning fuels in the United States.  However, Minnesota and a number of other Midwest states also rely heavily on transportation fuels that – while cleaner – are considered by some to have a large carbon footprint.

“The concept of a low carbon fuel standard itself is especially problematic for Midwest states. Unlike California, which produces much of its own crude, the Midwest relies on crude from Canada.... In Minnesota, for example, more than 80 percent of the state's crude supply comes from Canada. Although it's plentiful, Canadian crude is typically denser and requires more energy to produce than lighter and sweeter crudes. This makes it arguably more carbon intensive than crude derived from places like the Middle East."

The ones paying the price for this shortsighted bill are the businesses like Holiday Superstores who will be hit just for staying in business. And even worse, it's you and me who will ultimately feel the pain through skyrocketing energy costs.

This plan is wrong in its premise and in its execution. With our economy struggling as it is right now, how can we afford to raise energy costs? To educate yourself on what cap-and-tax really means for you and your family, check out what the Heritage Foundation has to offer.

As we plunge into the debate on cap-and-trade here in Washington and around the country, our nation can learn some lessons from Spain which adopted an energy policy that many in the U.S. point to "as a model for how government subsidies can create "green jobs."

A study directed by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, concluded that every "green job" created in Spain resulted in 2.2 other jobs being destroyed.

The study emphasized that only 10% of the "green jobs" created could be considered permanent - such as maintenance of renewable power systems. The remaining jobs consisted of temporary jobs in construction, fabrication and installation jobs; along with administrative positions, marketing, and engineering projects.

The study also finds that:

"If U.S. subsidies to renewable producers achieve the same result -- and President Obama has held Spain up as a model for how to subsidize renewables -- the U.S. could lose 6.6 million to 11 million jobs while it creates three million largely temporary 'green jobs.'"

Furthermore, Dr. Calzada stated that “the loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices.”

President Obama and his Congressional allies have stated an August goal for passing cap-and-trade legislation.  Our government needs to slow down and think twice about enacting an energy policy that will clearly hurt our already struggling economy and financially impact every single American.

For more information on the study, click here.

To read the study, click here.

Much has been made of President Obama's recently proposed cap-and-trade, energy-tax policy that he would soon like to see implemented as a means to raise revenue for his health care reform and other big spending plans. The graph below, provided by Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI), shows the state-by-state analysis of annual per capita increases in electricity costs that would occur under a 100% auction, as President Obama has called for, to meet his target carbon emission reductions.

Annual Increase in Electricity Costs
(based on the Stern Review's recommended carbon price of $85 per ton)

Source: Committee on Ways & Means Republican Staff analysis

At a Ways and Means hearing today, Congressman Camp questioned Congressional Budget Office Director Dr. Douglas Elmendorf  about the impact of this policy on consumers in other ways as well.  As Dr. Elmendorf said, “at any point in which we are putting a price on carbon emissions, that would be passed through to the cost that consumers face on energy products but also all other products that are made using fossil fuels….I don’t know if there are any goods that use no energy in their production.  It seems to me unlikely.”

The President’s energy tax is a policy we simply can't afford.

Amongst the several revenue-raising proposals in President Obama’s $3.9-trillion budget proposal is a carbon tax that will impact all American families.  His budget aims to raise $646 billion through a cap-and-trade tax on energy.

Last year, Peter Orszag, who was then Director of the Congressional Budget Office and is now President Obama’s Director for the Office of Management and Budget, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on a similar proposal.  Speaking about a cap-and-trade proposal to cut carbon emissions by 15%, he said it would cost the average household about $1,300 a year through higher energy costs.  He also noted that working class families would be hardest hit.

President Obama’s current proposal aims to cut carbon emissions by more than 3 times that of last year’s proposal – 83%.  John Feehery, writing in The Hill's Pundits Blog last week, noted that using Director Orszag’s analysis, this would mean that the average family will pay close to $4,000 a year, or $333 a month.

The White House seems to acknowledge that the costs of this tax will impact low-income families hardest and suggests a $500-a-year subsidy.  But, that doesn’t even cover two-months cost for the average family.  And, it doesn’t take into account the increased costs for everything from groceries to school supplies that a carbon tax will also impose on everyone.  We had a little taste of that last summer with the increased fuel costs adding to the costs of just about all consumer goods and I’m not sure American families want to return to that budget-busting scenario.

Over the weekend, Obama's Transition Team Co-Chair John Podesta said on Fox News Sunday, “There is a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we will see the President do that.”

What's being considered?

According to the Chicago Tribune, this could include locking up much of our nation's oil and gas leases.

When President Bush ended the executive moratorium on off-shore oil and gas leasing, it paved the way to accessing these resources. Allowing the Congressional moratorium on offshore and shale exploration to lapse on October 1 was the final step to unlocking these vital energy reserves. But just when gas prices have become affordable, Democrat leaders are about to lock up our energy resources once again, this time possibly even tighter.

This is not progress, and it's certainly not the change we deserve.

Driving through the district today, gas station after gas station displayed gas prices around the $2 mark. The lowest price I saw today was $2.06 in Elk River. It seems like only yesterday papers and pundits in my district and around the country were mocking the mere notion of $2 gas -- but here we are.

What happened the past few months to lower the cost of gas? Several things, but perhaps most importantly, Congress has let the ban on offshore oil exploration and oil shale expire, sending a signal to the markets that the United States may finally be ready to up their supply. Also, the collapse of the global markets has stabilized the American dollar. In other words, we're now getting more bang for our buck.

But to forget about the heavy strain that gas prices have had on the American household and economy over the past year - from filling up the gas tank to buying groceries - would be setting ourselves up for another fuel crisis in the near future.

Today I met with local inventors and innovators in St. Cloud to discuss their work on clean and renewable energy technologies and to discuss my legislation, H.R. 6716, the Promoting New American Energy Act, that would help us pave the way to American energy independence.  

The Promoting New American Energy Act would launch a wave of energy research, investment and innovation by aggressively accelerating tax depreciation for cutting-edge and renewable energy technologies – making America’s energy production more competitive with foreign nations.

Present at the St. Cloud meeting were Dave Wendorf from Sartec, a company developing algae for use as an alternative fuel; Dan Stevens, Director of Regulatory Affairs at CDC Enterprise, Inc.; David Tripp, Executive Director of Metro Transit, which adapted a bus to run on french fry oil; and Diane Moeller, principal of the Kennedy Community School in St. Joseph, where they are exploring a variety of innovative energy technologies on campus.

We need to take an All-of-the-Above approach to energy and open up our onshore and offshore oil and natural gas stockpiles, as well as pursue alternative forms of energy. To do one without the other would be self-defeating.

Last Friday I sent a letter to Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the EPA, regarding newly proposed EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.

As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts vs. EPA, greenhouse gases are now considered an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The problem with this is that the EPA now has a vast swath of power in which they can implement and regulate emissions standards, a power that has been long reserved to the United States Congress. Essentially, the EPA can now make overly broad regulatory pronouncements that could devastate our current fragile economy.

The proposal goes so far as to make specific engineering and design specifications, including how many grass clippings a lawnmower must make per gallon of gas.  It would impact American farms, businesses, and homes.  The authority assumed under this proposed rule would raise the price on energy, causing a domino effect that increases the costs of transportation, food manufactured goods and more.

This massive regulation could cost the American economy an estimated 7 trillion dollars in lost GDP in just 20 years, undoubtedly resulting in massive job losses. During this current economic crisis, we cannot afford to put the American economy in any further turmoil or hardship that could hinder its recovery. 

For more information on the EPA's proposed regulations, check out the Heritage Foundation's Stop the EPA website.

While the focus of everyone's attention right now is on the economy, it wasn't too long ago that the big issue in front of Congress was energy. It's safe to say that at least some of the economic hardship that Americans are facing today can be directly related to our lack of energy independence.

Today, the Congressional moratorium on off-shore drilling and oil shale expires, and Republicans can take solace in knowing that our insistent calls for the Speaker of the House to address this issue paid off... at least for now. Even more so, the pressure that Americans put on Congress to address the energy issue went a long way in forcing Speaker Pelosi's hand on this issue.

However, much more work needs to be done so America can actually start tapping into this energy potential. We must pass legislation that expedites the leasing and permitting processes and safeguards energy companies from frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits that can stall the production process for several years.

To see the letter to Speaker Pelosi I signed with 154 other members calling for the expiration of the moratorium, click here.

It seems that Democrats have come to their senses, at least for now anyway.  Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) has reportedly said that the funding resolution for Fiscal Year 2009 will NOT extend the moratorium that currently prevents exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and for Oil Shale.  That moratorium is currently set to expire on October 1.

Republicans and all Americans can claim victory knowing that our tireless dedication, most notably during the August recess when the Democrats were on vacation and Republicans continued to press for opening up our energy resources, has forced the Democrats' hand.  But this is by no means the end of the story.

The Democrats will wait out the election and if they take the White House, you can bet that the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling lifted by President Bush will once again be put in place. Not to mention that there's still a chance that the Democrats' "no energy" energy bill that they forced through the House last week could find its way through the Senate and onto the President's desk.

Furthermore, simply because this moratorium will expire on October 1 does not mean that energy production will start on October 2. What it does mean is that we can now begin setting plans that will allow for American energy production and eventual energy independence. My legislation to cut the red tape on energy production can certainly fast track things, but the Democrat leadership is sitting on it.  In fact, they’re sitting on most any real energy legislation.

We won a battle, but the fight for American energy independence wages on.
  

Faced with a looming bail-out of the financial sector hovering around the $700 billion dollar mark, I’ve signed a letter written by Congressman Joe Barton (Ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee) urging the President to consider opening up ANWR and the Eastern Gulf of the OCS to improve our energy security, lower energy prices, and provide needed revenue to the Treasury to help shoulder the burden the bail-out will place on the American taxpayer.

Here's a portion of the letter:

"As we work to strengthen our markets through an assistance package, we should also offset some of the liability, without raising taxes.  This package should contain some means to pay at least part of the cost of rescuing these financial giants, and do it without asking the taxpayers to shoulder a burden which is, after all, not their responsibility.  We therefore encourage you to include legislative language that would open up ANWR to leasing, along with the Outer Continental Shelf of the Eastern Gulf. 

The Congressional Research Service reports that in ANWR alone, if producers were able to recover 10.3 billion barrels of oil over the life of the properties - with prices at $125/barrel - the federal government could collect $191 billion in revenues over the production period, estimated to be at least 30 years once production commences.

Allowing lease sales in these areas, will not only increase revenue to the Treasury through royalties and corporate income taxes, but will also improve our energy security...."

I think it's only fair for Congress to look for ways to help offset the cost to the taxpayer of this trillion-dollar bail-out with revenues. While this isn't the only solution, it sure is an innovative one to help us navigate through our current financial crisis while protecting the American taxpayer and increasing American energy independence.