Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

David Vitter on Energy & Oil

Republican Jr Senator; previously Representative (LA-1)


Get us beyond high-carbon fuels

"11 academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming," admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance." An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars." And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.120 , Feb 28, 2012

3D energy: Domestic jobs; Domestic energy; Deficit reduction

In 2011, I joined a dozen Republican senators in support of Senator David Vitter's 3-D energy legislation. The three "d's" represent Domestic jobs, Domestic energy, and Deficit reduction. Without spending one dime of taxpayer money, this legislation, if implemented, would create 2 million jobs, $10 million in economic activity, and $2 trillion in federal tax receipts over the next 30 years. It would also make America more energy independent.

Vitter's 3-D legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to open up deep-sea oil and gas development in the Atlantic Ocean. It would open the huge oil reserves in Alaska, known as ANWR, and it would expedite permits to develop onshore energy reserves in several states.

Developing oil reserves in ANWR would create 730,000 jobs, $114 billion in federal royalty revenue, and another $95 billion in additional federal corporate income tax revenue. So what are we waiting for?

Source: Now Or Never, by Sen. Jim DeMint, p.171 , Jan 10, 2012

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled, "No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases". In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous oxide
  5. Sulfur hexafluoride
  6. Hydrofluorocarbons
  7. Perfluorocarbons
  8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill Am183 to S.49 ; vote number 11-SV054 on Apr 6, 2011

Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.