Newt Gingrich has a plan: If the House is going to vote on military action in Syria, Speaker John Boehner should attach war-authorization votes to legislation forcing approval of the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline.
Gingrich made his pitch to House leadership Thursday on Twitter:
House GOP should combine Keystone Pipeline and Syria into one up or down vote. Lets see who wants war while opposing American energy— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 29, 2013
Politically, it has the markings of a shrewd move, as many House Democrats would be loath to vote against President Obama but equally unwilling to vote for a project that the party’s environmental base despises. Indeed, Democrats have largely voted against the project during the House’s seven separate attempts to force the White House’s hand on the pipeline.
But Gingrich’s bid to connect Keystone XL and Syria is plagued by a logical loophole: Unlike some of its Middle Eastern neighbors, Syria produces little oil, and almost none of it goes to the U.S.
By the numbers:
Syrian oil exports have been blocked by international sanctions since late 2011, and even before then, it was hardly a major player in world oil supply: It produced 0.4 percent of global supply pre-sanctions, and much of that was consumed internally.
The U.S. imported 476,000 barrels of oil from Syria in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
That same year, the U.S. used 7 billion barrels of oil, again according to the EIA.
That means Syria supplied a shade under 0.0067 percent of U.S. oil consumption, or about enough to meet America’s average 2010 oil demand for “¦ 36 minutes.
To be sure …
There are plenty of other arguments for or against a Syrian military strike, and — should one feel a need to make a case based strictly on energy — there’s an argument to be made that U.S. involvement in Syria could disrupt oil production throughout the region and put a major dent in U.S. supplies.
But if Gingrich is going to draw a direct line between Syria and Keystone XL, it’s going to take more than a tweet.
- 1 Clinton Wins Debate, But Did She Win Over Voters?
- 2 Smart Ideas: The Most Important Election of a 96-Year-Old’s Lifetime; Clinton’s Pitch to Millennials
- 3 Senate Progressives Look to Flex Muscles in 2017
- 4 The District Where Democrats Want a Gun-Control Debate
- 5 The House Republicans Still Mum on Trump
What We're Following See More »
"It was obvious he wasn't prepared." “He only mentioned her email scandal once." "I think he took things a little too personal and missed a lot of opportunities to make very good debate points." That's just a smattering of the reactions of some elected Republicans to Donald Trump's debate performance.
The conventional wisdom is already emerging that Donald Trump opened last night's debate well, but that he faded badly down the stretch. And most viewers apparently witnessed it. "The early Nielsen data confirms that viewership stayed high the entire time. Contrary to some speculation, there was not a big drop-off after the first hour of the 98-minute debate." Final data is still being tallied, but "Monday's face-off may well have been the most-watched debate in American history. CNN and other cable news channels saw big increases over past election years. So did some of the broadcast networks."
As Congress continues to bicker on riders to a continuing resolution, federal agencies have started working with the Office of Management and Budget to prepare for a government shutdown, which will occur if no continuing resolution is passed by 11:59 p.m. on Friday night. The OMB held a call with agencies on Sept. 23, one that is required one week before a possible shutdown. The government last shut down for 16 days in 2013, and multiple shutdowns have been narrowly avoided since then. It is expected that Congress will reach a deal before the clock strikes midnight, but until it does, preparations will continue.