John Carter on Energy & Oil Republican Representative (TX-31)

Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.

Congressional Summary:
• Makes available for leasing, in the 2012-2017 five-year oil and gas leasing program, outer Continental Shelf areas that are estimated to contain more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil; or are estimated to contain more than 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
• Makes the production goal for the 2012-2017 five-year oil and gas leasing program an increase by 2027 in daily production of at least 3 million barrels of oil, and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

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.

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change.
• Excludes GHGs from the definition of "air pollutant" for purposes of addressing climate change.
• Exempts from such prohibition existing regulations on fuel efficiency, research, or CO2 monitoring.
• Repeals and makes ineffective other rules and actions concerning GHGs.

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.

Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.

1. issuing, trading, and verifying renewable electricity credits; and
2. prescribing standards to define and measure electricity savings from energy efficiency and energy conservation measures.

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.

Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

• (1) through 2009 for wind facilities; and
• (2) through FY2011 for closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, and hydropower facilities.
• Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of such tax credit.
• Includes cellulosic biofuel within the definition of "biomass ethanol plant property" for purposes of bonus depreciation.
• Allows a new tax credit for the production of qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

[The bill was killed in the Senate].

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 YES 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.

Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules.

Amends the Clean Air Act to:
1. exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and
2. declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.

Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP.

No Climate Tax Pledge: "I pledge to the taxpayers of my state, and to the American people, that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."

Sponsoring organizations: Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEU); National Taxpayers Union (NTU); Institute for Liberty Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans.

No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary of H.R.97:

Amends the Clean Air Act to:
1. exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and
2. declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.

Congressional Summary of H.R.153, "Ensuring Affordable Energy Act":

Prohibits any funds appropriated or otherwise available for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from being used to implement or enforce:
1. a cap-and-trade program (any regulatory program that provides for the sale, auction, or other distribution of a limited amount of allowances that permit the emission of one or more greenhouse gases); or
2. any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of one or more greenhouse gases from stationary sources that is issued after January 1, 2011.

OnTheIssues Explanation:These two related bills exclude the EPA from taking on global warming by defining greenhouse gases as a "pollutant." These bills do not directly oppose regulating greenhouse gases nor cap-and-trade; either could still be accomplished by an act of Congress. Instead, they REQUIRE an act of Congress, rather than letting the President and the EPA bypass Congress by regulatory implementation instead of legislative implementation.

Drill for oil & gas in offshore OCS & Eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Congressional Summary: House amendment to H.R. 5538, the Interior & Environment Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2017. This amendment would prohibit funds to be used to research, investigate, or study offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Heritage Foundation recommends voting NO: (7/13/2016): The Gulf of Mexico continues to be a very important asset for our energy future and it continues to produce significant amounts of oil and natural gas. Yet the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has not participated to this point despite its significant potential. A 2014 Heritage Foundation report said: "Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied oil production and prevented the full effects of the energy boom." This amendment would block any potential progress that could take place by preventing the necessary work that would need to be prepared in the East Gulf for potential lease sales and eventual production.

Sierra Club recommends voting YES: (1/12/1974): The Sierra Club believes that no offshore petroleum exploration should occur unless and until the following conditions are met:

• Strengthen the Coastal Zone Management System.
• Lease sales should be prohibited in areas that possess:
  • High seismic activity
  • Fragile or unstable geological structures
  • Proximity to particularly diverse or productive marine ecosystems, or marine sanctuaries
  • Where visual impact of offshore structures would significantly reduce aesthetic values
  • Where the risks are unusually high.
• Petroleum exploration and production must be subject to automatic, heavy fines for all oil spills regardless of cause.
• The Sierra Club opposes leasing of lands beyond 200 meters depth until international agreements [define] ownership of sea floor resources.

Legislative outcome: Failed House 185 to 243 (no Senate vote).

Federal collaboration for advanced nuclear technologies.

Press Release from 5 Senators: The Senate today approved, 87-4, legislation that would facilitate advanced nuclear technologies, as part of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), S. 2461, which prioritizes partnering with private innovators on new reactor technologies and the testing and demonstration of reactor concepts.

Supporters arguments:

• "Nuclear energy has an important role to play as we transition to a carbon-free energy future. This amendment will help drive investment, remove bureaucratic barriers, and allow our entrepreneurs and businesses to unleash the promise of advanced nuclear technologies," said Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).
• "Including clean nuclear energy as part of our nation's 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy is a no-brainer," said Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

Opposing environmental argument: (Sierra Club FactSheet, "Why Nuclear Power Doesn't Make Sense"): As the disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown, nuclear power can cause catastrophic damage to land & human health. We should pursue our cleanest, quickest, safest, and cheapest energy options first: Nuclear power comes out last in every one of those categories.

Opposing economic argument: (Cato Institute Commentary, "Risky Business"): Many free-market advocates support nuclear because it costs less to generate nuclear power than it does to generate electricity from any other source. However, someone has to first pay for--and build--these plants and the rub is that nuclear has very high, upfront construction costs ranging from $6-9 billion. By contrast, gas plants cost only a few hundred million dollars to build and coal a couple of billion. But the final nail in the coffin for the industry would be if the federal cap on the liability that nuclear power plant owners face in case of accidents (the Price-Anderson Act) were to be lifted.

Voted NO on assisting rural electric renewable energy.

Congressional Summary:This bill requires the Department of Energy to award grants to assist rural electric cooperatives with identifying, evaluating, and designing energy storage and microgrid projects that rely on renewable energy. (A microgrid is a group of interconnected energy resources that acts as a single controllable entity and that can disconnect from the grid to operate in island mode.)

SciPol statement in support: HR4447 would establish a microgrid grant and technical assistance program for rural electric cooperatives. Rural electric cooperatives are non-profit consumer-owned electric cooperatives that came into being in the 1930s to serve the needs of rural areas otherwise ignored by investor-owned (for-profit) utilities. Most rural electric power is still provided by rural electric co-ops.

Trump's Statement of Administration Policy (against): HR 4447 would implement a top-down approach that undermines the Administration's deregulatory agenda. HR 4447 would lead to higher energy costs and discourage innovation. It would create a "green bank" that would subsidize projects similar to wellknown failures like Solyndra. Finally, HR 4447 would interfere with our own energy destiny free from the reins of the Paris Climate Accord and international organizations that ignore the clear lessons that have led to American energy independence.

Common Dreams (against): Over 100 groups--including major environmental, climate and progressive organizations--oppose HR 4447. The heaviest burdens of the climate crisis fall on low-income communities and communities of color. "We applaud the environmental justice measures in this bill, but cannot support legislation that extends our country's reliance upon fossil fuels," said the Executive Director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

Legislative outcome: Passed House 220-185-24, Roll #206 on Sep. 24, 2020.