Press Release from Sen. Chambliss re: Energy


WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today issued the following statement in support of President Bush’s call to ease the burden of high energy prices.

We must do everything possible to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil so that all Americans have access to abundant, affordable energy. To this end, we must work to promote new technologies, develop reliable domestic energy resources, expand refining capabilities, and increase alternative sources of fuel like ethanol and biodiesel. Interest in biofuels has significantly increased in this country and for good reason. And I am pleased that the state of Georgia has an opportunity to play a role in addressing this critical need in numerous capacities.

The energy bill signed into law by the President will continue to help the nation move in the right direction to address this critical issue for the long term. The reality is that there is not an overnight solution; however, we can take steps to ease the burden for the short term. For instance, it is widely known that the price of energy is affected by futures trading. If Congress authorized drilling in ANWR, this would send a clear message to other oil producing countries that we are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil imports.

I applaud President Bush for his continued push to address the current supply-demand problem that has resulted in high gasoline prices affecting so many people right now. It’s unfortunate that folks on the other side of the aisle are once again resorting to blame game politics when they have, for years, obstructed attempts to increase our domestic energy supply. All they have offered in the past is to raise taxes, which would increase prices for consumers. This is not what Americans want or deserve.

Chambliss, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, will chair a hearing on biofuels tomorrow, Wednesday, April 25, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room SD-106.


  1. kspencer says:

    ANWR. Ten years till we get our first drop. Two years then ramping up to full production. Four to six years max-rate production. Taper off of (depending on source) two to eight years. At best, then, sixteen years of production the peak of which would provide 2-4% (again depending on source) of our current demand. Oh, and I forgot the best part.

    We’d export almost all of it to Asia.

    We do that already with what we pull from Alaska. We export Alaska oil to Asia because it’s more profitable to sell there and pay for Canadian/Mexican/North Sea/Venezuelan/Middle Eastern oil than it is to ship it on down to our own refineries.

    The ANWR does have oil reserves. And it’d help extend the WORLD supply of oil for a decade or two. But the implications and claims of it being soon and for us are mistaken.

    But it’s a nice political point.

  2. John Konop says:

    The real issue is we keep giving money to monopolies to solve the energy problem. We need to shift the tax breaks from big oil companies to entrepreneurs via SBA style loan guarantees to companies with a vested interest in competing with oil companies.The last Energy bill did the absolute opposite. Read what Adam Smith said about monopolies .

    § “A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate.

  3. Low prices at the pump in the 90’s and “not in my back yard” enviromental policys have made oil too expensive for the us market. This has lead to the demise of oil companies like Texaco and has limited the competition.

    The US is not giving money to the monopolies, it is taking it by limiting areas they can explore for oil. (California off shore and Anwar)THis has allowed the foriegn oil companies to dominate the market. It is refreshing to have a senator like Saxby Chambliss so well informed.

  4. debbie0040 says:

    Authorizing drilling in ANWR would send a clear signal to foreign countries that the United States is serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and we are prepared do what ever is necessary to do that.

    I hope Sen. Chambliss keeps pressing ANWR and reminds these Democraic Senators running off at the mouth about the high price of oil, that had they not filibustered drilling in ANWR, the price of gas might not be so high.

  5. John Konop says:


    By the way you can find many articles from all sides that agree this was a do nothing pork deal. I do agree with opening up exploration, but we cannot afford bills like this when we are 9 trillion in the red and at $3 a gallon. As I said we need to create competition ,not feed monopolies. Conservative economic theory was based on Adam Smith ,you should read his points about monopolies again.

    Tax Payers for Common Sense

    Washington, D.C. – The following is the written statement by Jill Lancelot, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense on conference negotiations on the energy bill:

    Last night, congressional negotiators put the finishing touches on a $80 billion energy bill that is filled to the brim with massive giveaways for mega-rich energy companies. By stuffing the measure with so much pork, the negotiators have attempted to buy off enough votes to guarantee passing a so-called energy bill that doesn’t lower gas prices or lessen our nation’s foreign dependence on oil.

    This is the lobbyist backyard barbecue bill, because every energy interest is going home with its pockets stuffed with pork, while taxpayers get roasted. The nation’s current energy crunch should have been a call for Congress to get serious about fixing our nation’s energy woes. Instead, they used this bill to lavish their favorite companies and campaign contributors with huge handouts, while they hope our energy woes will just melt away.

    As the marathon conference meeting came to a close last night, lawmakers let go any fiscal inhibitions and started spending like a bunch of drunken sailors on wasteful, unnecessary energy projects. Some of the worst pork that conferees accepted last night included a $2 billion risk insurance program for the nuclear industry and a $250,000 study for irradiated fuel – an energy source that none of the energy bill conferees had heard of, but most voted for anyway.

    Lawmakers lowered the bar with this energy bill – rather than taking meaningful steps to give consumers relief while making our energy supplies more secure, Congress chose to draft an energy bill that, as even its strongest supporters grudgingly admit, doesn’t do anything to lower the price at the pump. This bill is yet another example of why Americans no longer trust Congress: at a time when Congress had a chance to benefit America’s pocketbook, lawmakers chose instead to pick their pockets.


    Taxpayers for Common Sense is a non-partisan budget watchdog dedicated to cutting wasteful spending and subsidies to achieve a responsible and efficient government that operates within its means.

  6. Bill Simon says:

    There are two sides to our fuel problem: 1) Supply. 2) Demand.

    Chambliss and Bush do not want to address demand, only supply. Why aren’t people like Chambliss and Bush offering-up the possibility of requiring automakers to come-up with much more efficient autos, faster?

  7. John Konop says:


    Tax breaks do not guarantee investment to grow a business. That is why SBA style loan programs make the company put up their own money. The net effect is better to a company who really believes in the idea. Capital is the biggest issue for a small business grow.This type of program has generated excellent returns on investment. Companies like UPS started this way. Would anyone argue the next UPS in energy business is not out their? This would grow high paying jobs? This would increase tax revenues.

  8. John Konop says:


    You are right we could do SBA style loans on both side supply and demand. My point is simple giving money away to monopolies is a waste of money.

  9. Fuzzyslippers says:

    I completely agree with you John.

    Please allow me to sum up what Saxby is doing to help this problem.


    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  10. Bill Simon says:

    Wait! I know what the Republicans can do to tamp-down demand! They could do what the anti-gun people used to do, except instead of a “gun buyback program,” they should hold an “SUV buyback plan!”

  11. Fuzzyslippers says:

    Sadly no Bill.

    What did they do? They cut funding intended for reducing energy consumption. Why not? The oil companies can spend this money better anyway.

    “Across the board, federal funding for energy efficiency is taking a major hit. In the White House’s proposed 2007 budget, efficiency spending is down 17% overall from 2006 appropriations, and 25% from levels in 2002. The cuts are deeper for individual programs. Research to help industry reduce energy use is slated for a 30% decrease, and some programs are being shut down.”

    W loves to grandstand but when it comes to cutting a check to something that actually is important…..we’ll there is a saying in Texas, or is it Tennessee.

  12. Fuzzyslippers says:

    You know, I’ve realized it’s getting awfully quiet on these threads once I start throwing links around.

  13. JP says:

    Debbie, don’t be fooled that 6 months worth of oil from ANWR would fix things. We need alternative fuel sources, and better public transportation to provide a way for people NOT to use their cars. ESPECIALLY in Atlanta, poster child for unfettered urban sprawl..

Comments are closed.