Tom Feeney on Energy & Oil

Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.

• Production Incentives: Extends through 2011 the tax credit for the production of electricity from renewable resources (e.g., wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower).
• Extends through 2016 the energy tax credit for investment in solar energy and fuel cell property.
• Allows a new tax credit for the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles.
• Extends through 2010 the tax credits for biodiesel (including agri-biodiesel)
• Allows an alcohol fuels tax credit for the production of qualified cellulosic alcohol fuel.
• Denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or any related products.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. MATSUI: Today's debate is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill restores balance to our energy policy after years of a tax structure that favors huge oil companies. Today's legislation will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. SMITH of Texas: I oppose H.R. 5351. While it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry. In 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6% of the US domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58% of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life.

Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 236-182

Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. PELOSI: This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown biofuels in history. We know that America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to middle America, not to the Middle East.

Rep. TIERNEY: This bill incorporates the Green Jobs Act, which will make $120 million a year available to begin training workers in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education for "green-collar jobs" that can provide living wages & upward mobility.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. SHIMKUS: I'm upset about the bill because it has no coal provisions. What about coal-to-liquid jobs? Those are real jobs with great wages. Energy security? We have our soldiers deployed in the Middle East because it's an important national security interest. Why? We know why. Crude oil. How do we decrease that importance of the Persian Gulf region? We move to coal-to-liquid technologies. What is wrong with this bill? Everything. No soy diesel. No ethanol. No coal. Nothing on nuclear energy. No expansion. There is no supply in this bill. Defeat this bill.

Rep. RAHALL: [This bill omits a] framework to sequester carbon dioxide to ensure the future use of coal in an environmentally responsible fashion. We can talk about biofuels all we want, but the fact is that coal produces half of our electricity for the foreseeable future. We must aggressively pursue technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide.

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, $3.27 a gallon, topping even the 1981 spike. This won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either.

OPEC oil exports represent 70% of all the oil traded internationally. For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but have done little or nothing to stop this. The time has come.

This bill makes fixing oil prices or illegal under US law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct. It attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve.

Opponents support voting NO because:

• We can only affect OPEC subsidiaries in the US. So the result of this bill would be to hurt US companies while not affecting OPEC itself.
• OPEC is a cartel, but we have to deal with it diplomatically. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed for US monopolies, not international state-run cartels.
• We should focus on domestic policies to affect gas prices. We cannot respond to a short-term crisis with a long-term response.

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

• Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
• Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.

It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.

Opponents support voting NO because:

I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.

This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.

We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money.

Opponents support voting NO because:

For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment.

This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future.

Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.

Voting YES would allow floor debate on H.R.5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which provides for the following:
• The EPA, upon the request of a state governor, shall provide scheduling and financial assistance relevant to consideration of federal refinery authorizations.
• The President shall designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.
• Requires that at least one such site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.

Proponents of the resolution say:
• Over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily
• In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day.
• We must make build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack

Opponents of the resolution say:
• $3 a gallon gas is a problem, but so is global warming, and so is our dependence on fossil fuels.
• Unfortunately, this bill represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy.
• There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976, but there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented construction of a refinery.
• We should reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation, and work to develop renewable sources of fuel.
• Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits.

Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.

• Authorizing the President to designate sites on Federal land for construction of new oil refineries, including at least three on closed military bases
• Allowing the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with non-Federal entities to construct or restore new refineries that use crude oil or coal to produce gasoline or other fuel
• Establishing a program to encourage carpools by giving grants to states and to evaluate the use of the Internet to link riders with carpools, assist employers establish carpool programs, and market existing programs
• Authorizing any facility to use biomass debris as fuel if it meets certain standards, such as resulting from a major disaster
• $2.5 million to create an education campaign about gasoline conservation

Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:

• 0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
• 30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
• 70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)

The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.

About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":

Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.