A "NO" Energy Bill?

Posted: Dec 06, 2007 2:03 PM

Upon the assumption of her role as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated,

“Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.” 

Today Speaker Pelosi brought forth an energy bill. No one had seen it before then. It has some good things, some OK things and some bad things. I will vote against it because I believe the bad outweighed the good. But the point here is that we need an energy bill to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and petroleum in general. But this bill, although it will pass the House, will not pass the Senate and if it did, the President has said he would veto it.

Again there was an opportunity to accomplish a lot in this area in which there is agreement. I certainly wouldn't get all I wanted, but I would get some. The Speaker and the President would also get some but not all of what they wanted. There is clear common ground.

It seems that the Democrat House leadership is more interested in making political statements than accomplishing anything.

Maybe the Senate can fix the bill.