|
|
Tom Rooney on Energy & Oil |
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Young, R-AK]: The Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. In 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon, the public outcry forced Congress to act. That fall, Congress lifted the offshore drilling ban that had been in place for decades. Three years later, most Americans would likely be shocked to learn that no energy development
has happened in these new areas.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Markey, D-MA]. In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BOB GOODLATTE (R, VA-6): I agree that this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. It's a fantasy that this legislation will turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China & India & other nations are pumping more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and and nuclear power. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.
The Contract from America, clause 2. Reject Cap & Trade:
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.
The Contract from America, clause 8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy:
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers, [to keep energy prices low].
Congressional Summary:Amends the Energy Conservation and Production Act to repeal provisions concerning the Department of Energy's weatherization assistance program for low-income persons to increase energy efficiency of dwellings.
Proponent's Comments (Rep. Chuck Fleischmann Press Release):Fleischmann said, "I have worked since day one to balance our budget and stop the 'tax, borrow, spend' mentality that has dominated Washington for far too long. I am glad to introduce legislation to end the Weatherization Assistance Program in order to save billions of dollars."
Other federal programs, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), are already in place to assist low-income households in managing energy costs. The Dept. of Energy's Inspector General conducted a review of this program concluding that weatherization work on homes was poorly administered and led to potentially harmful effects for home inhabitants.
Opponent's Comments (GreenBuildingAdvisor.com, Nov. 22, 2011):The purpose of the measure is to eliminate the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which provides free weatherization services for low-income households. The WAP has historically been ignored by politicians as a cost-cutting target because its annual budget was, at a few million dollars, relatively small. But its budget ballooned dramatically--to about $5 billion over three years--under the federal stimulus program.
The congressman says the WAP is dispensable because LIHEAP is already in place. Weatherization improvements, however, provide ongoing energy savings rather than one-time assistance with energy bills.
Fleischmann points to a DOE review that called the expanded program "poorly administered." But the main concern identified in that report was the sluggish rollout of services in many states, due to confusion over wage and other implementation requirements.