Posted by Frank James at 3:21 pm CDT
Amid all the partisan finger-pointing on Capitol Hill over rising gas prices, comes a voice from the moderate middle belonging to Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert from upstate New York. 
Boehlert, chair of the House Science Committee, dismisses many of the ideas currently coming from those in his own party as well as Democrats. “The American public deserves better,” he says.
Sometimes at odds with his own party as well as President Bush, especially on environmental issues, Boehlert has announced his retirement from the House.
Still, his comments stand out because they are in such contrast to the factional fighting that’s raging all around him. You can read his press release below.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2006
Science Committee Press Office:
BOEHLERT STATEMENT ON ENERGY
WASHINGTON - House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) issued the following statement today on energy policy:
"The American public is quite reasonably seeking relief from high gasoline prices. Congress ought to be responding by taking a comprehensive, thoughtful look at energy policy - both supply and demand - to see what we can do not only to limit prices now, but to avoid even worse situations in the future.
"Unfortunately, very few people in Congress seem willing to do this. The Democrat Leadership is offering little but populist rhetoric; on the Republican side, some of the most vocal Members are largely seeking the revival of bad ideas that have failed to be enacted in the past. The American public deserves better.
"Having yet another vote on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) does not constitute creative or long-range thinking about a balanced energy policy. Having yet another vote on refinery legislation that uses high oil prices as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and to give more legislative gifts to the oil industry is misguided in the extreme. In fact, Congress already took steps to increase the supply of oil and other fuels in the Energy Act that its supporters were bragging about just last summer. I didn't support that bill, but do its supporters now see nothing in it of value?
"We need to move now on two related fronts. We need to reduce or at least limit U.S. demand for oil as quickly as possible, and we need to develop new technologies that can further help address our addiction to oil in the future.
"It's crystal clear where we need to start on the demand side. The U.S. uses most of its oil for transportation. We can limit U.S. demand for oil by requiring automakers to use the technology that already exists to improve fuel economy - technology that the automakers refuse to bring into the market despite societal demand. That is a classic market failure that the government ought to address. The National Academy of Sciences has made clear that mileage can be increased significantly with current technologies and without reducing safety.
"We ought to take the same kinds of steps to require appliances and buildings to be more energy efficient. That won't do much for gas prices - little oil is used to generate electricity - but it will help our nation become more energy secure overall.
"And then we need to invest more in coming up with new technologies that can move us away from our dependence on gasoline. Three obvious areas that require more investment are plug-in hybrids, biofuels and hydrogen. Our Science Committee will be reviewing ideas on how to increase our investment in those areas, and we expect to move legislation swiftly.
"On hydrogen, we will be holding a hearing today on Congressman Inglis' bill to offer prizes to create a new incentive to advance hydrogen technology. That bill could probably move very quickly. On biofuels, the President has led the way with his Advanced Energy Initiative, which Congress should enact and expand. On plug-in hybrids, more and more communities across the country are interested in this technology and we need to do more to promote it.
"We cannot build a strong energy future by relying on weak ideas from the past. I hope the energy debate broadens as Congress has more time to think about this issue. Right now all we're seeing is a reflexive fight and flee response - fighting old battles and fleeing from the real issues. That has to change."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Refresh my memory. When low interest rates - with which the average American had nothing to do - allowed homeowners to sell their properties for more money than they were worth, was there a national outcry? When people sell their used and abused cars for more than they are worth, is there a national outcry?
Oil companies might be selling gasoline at prices that are far beyond what it cost to produce the gas. But we are allowed to do that in a capitalist society. We are allowed to charge as much as we can get for gas, milk, butter... and, yes, houses and used cars.
I agree with the congressman that we need to start on the demand side. When people start to modify their behavior which results in less usage of gas, the prices will be adjusted. Until then, oil companies will continue to raise the price of gas.
As for there being a "classic market failure that the government ought to address," one can only imagine the outcome of that goverment intervention. When people are selling something for more than it is worth, they are happy. When people are being sold something for more than it is worth, they cry "Uncle." We can't have it both ways.
End of the debate.
Posted by: Jorge from Bloomington | April 28, 2006 6:32 AM