On December 19, 2005 Congressman Mike Ferguson voted for a budget bill that included a provision opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for petroleum. It was the fourth time he has voted for bills including this provision in five years, despite Ferguson's repeatedly claiming that he opposes oil drilling in ANWR and pointing to it as a sign of his independence from the Bush administration.
But more troubling than Ferguson's hypocricy in calling keeping ANWR oil rig free a "national priority" yet voting to approve drilling is that he repeatedly omits his true voting record when writing to his constituents. Twice before -- here and here -- we've published letters from Ferguson touting his three votes for failed amendments against drilling but conveniently leaving out his votes for approving drilling in successful bills.
And now he has done it again. In an e-mail dated January 4, 2006 Ferguson brags:
I have voted three times – in 2001, 2003 and 2005 – to prohibit drilling in ANRW.
This e-mail -- published in full after the jump -- was sent just 16 days after he voted to approve drilling in the budget bill. While it lays out excellent arguments against drilling in ANWR in order to portray Ferguson as an environmentalist, it fails to note he voted twice for drilling in 2005 and once each in 2001 and 2003.
The only way to stop Ferguson from continuing to mislead his constituents is to make his intentional mendacity public. Please write letters to the editor about this issue, and Ferguson's consistent inability to tell the truth about his voting record.
The Courier News is at letters@c-n.com, the Home News Tribune at letters@thnt.com, the Star Ledger at eletters@starledger.com, or the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com.
Here is the complete e-mail sent by Congressman Michael Ferguson to a constituent, whose name is being withheld:
January 4, 2006
Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
In your letter, you supported drilling in ANWR. [The constituent says he only asked Ferguson's position, not supported drilling.]
I have voted three times – in 2001, 2003 and 2005 – to prohibit drilling in ANRW. I have voted to prohibit drilling off the California and Florida coasts, in the Great Lakes and on national monuments, and I also have supported legislation to prohibit drilling off the New Jersey coast.
Some advocates of ANWR drilling argue that oil in Alaska could reduce U.S. gasoline prices and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, drilling in ANWR would not appreciably reduce current U.S. gasoline prices.
For example, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that ANWR holds only a six-month supply of economically recoverable oil. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration estimates that 20 years after drilling begins in ANWR, when it would be at or near peak production, domestic gasoline prices would be affected by about one penny per gallon.
News reports also indicate that the oil and gas industry itself estimates that oil from ANWR would not be available for at least seven to 10 years because of the complicated nature of leasing, exploration and infrastructure construction.
As you know, gasoline prices have steadily increased nationwide since 2004. Although gasoline prices have recently moderated, the overall increase has been fueled mostly by the growing U.S. economy, inadequate refinery capacity in America necessary to supply gasoline to the expanding economy, and strong and sustained worldwide demand, particularly in China.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita also disrupted the U.S. oil and gasoline supply as well as the nation’s refining capacity, 40 percent of which is located in the area affected by the hurricanes.
In part because of these facts, gasoline prices have risen since 2004 and spiked dramatically before and after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. Particularly following the hurricane, many expressed concern about price gouging by gasoline and diesel fuel sellers. I share those concerns.
There are no federal laws that specifically address price gouging, according to the Congressional Research Service. At least 28 states, including New Jersey, have price gouging laws, which are generally applicable in situations arising from a declared emergency.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) monitors gas prices nationally and investigates possible antitrust violations in the petroleum industry, but the FTC does not have authority under federal law to investigate price gouging.
I voted September 28, 2005, for legislation that would require the FTC to crackdown on price gouging by gasoline and diesel fuel sellers. The legislation – H.R. 3839, the Gasoline for America’s Security Act – would require the FTC to define price gouging and then penalize violators up to $11,000 per occurrence.
I believe there should be zero tolerance for price gouging. Gas stations cannot, and should not, be allowed to take advantage of national emergencies at your expense.
For our nation’s economy and national security, I also believe America must move away from our dependence on fossil fuels – particularly because oil supply and price volatility from unstable countries can hold our nation hostage. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil makes sense for our economy and for our environment.
As a father of four young children, I dedicate myself to protecting the environment, and I am committed to ensuring the environment shared by future generations is safe, clean and protected. I will remain a strong advocate in Congress of protecting and strengthening our environment.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your opinions with me and please visit my website at www.house.gov/ferguson for more information on issues important to New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District.
Sincerely,
Mike Ferguson Member of Congress