Mark Begich on Energy & Oil

	Mark Begich on Energy & Oil Democratic Jr Senator

Green Bank to fund energy conservation and development

Begich said he fears the economy is still foundering and that Alaskans are looking for better leadership in stimulating growth. He praised one idea for creative financing that has put forth recently that has gotten little support by the Walker administration--a "green bank" concept that would leverage financing to fund energy conservation and new development. So-called green banks in the Northeast states have stimulated investment of several billion dollars of new investment in energy projects, Begich said.

Begich also cited his own early advocacy, as a U.S. senator, for Alaska becoming a leader in the development of aerial drone technology and testing. At the time drones were still considered a far-fetched idea in many quarters.

One specific proposal Begich now puts forth is a $6 billion state capital improvements program funded by general obligation bonds where the projects would be built over several years.

Source: Anchorage Press on 2018 Alaska gubernatorial debate , Aug 30, 2018

Drill in the Arctic Ocean; drill in National Forests

Drill, baby, drill. Sen. Mark Begich will go on the radio Thursday with a new ad touting his work to expand drilling and mining in the Arctic:

"Even though Washington keeps trying to stop Alaska from developing our natural resources, I'm pushing for more oil drilling and mining because it means thousands of new jobs that you can raise a family on," he says in the 60-second spot, "and because it's our land, and we know best how to use it."

Begich began running radio ads early. Each ad presents him as an outsider fighting against the unpopular status quo in Washington. Previous topics include education reform and decrying the government shutdown.

Begich notes that he got the Forest Service to open up 11 new drill sites at Greens Creek and to expand the mine to keep it open for an additional 30 years. "And next year, Shell Oil is coming back to the Arctic Ocean, bringing new and upgraded drill ships so we can finally start drilling after decades of waiting," said Begich.

Source: Politico.com AdWatch on 2014 Alaska Senate race , Jan 2, 2014

Advocate for opening up ANWR to drilling

Mark Begich did what almost no other Democrat in Washington would ever do: declaring his support for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But this is Alaska, where Democrats are of a different stripe, Begich reminded those who haven’t seen many national-level Democrats from Alaska lately. “I think anyone who knows me knows I’m a different Democrat. I’m from Alaska. I’m a believer, a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a supporter of drilling in ANWR. Alaskans are very liberal [in their belief that] government should not interfere in their personal life,“ he said.

Begich said he was confident he would be able to act as a powerful new advocate on Capitol Hill for opening up Alaska’s northernmost wildlife refuge to oil drilling. The idea has been blocked for years because of concerns it would threaten caribou, migrating birds, polar bears and other wildlife whose survival depends on the Arctic coastal plain and nearby waters.

Source: Los Angeles Times, “Stevens-Begich” , Nov 20, 2008

Short term: $2.5B for LIHEAP; 70M bbl from strategic reserve

Begich said he sent letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, urging them to join in a bipartisan effort to tackle both short-term relief & long-term solutions in a national energy package to give help and hope to America’s working families. Begich said the skyrocketing cost of home heating fuel prices “is crippling many communities & stretching pocketbooks,” and hospitals, schools and businesses are making tough budget decisions to cover record electricity bills. In his letter, Begich asked Senate leaders to:

add an extra $2.5 billion in funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
clamp down on oil market speculators and price gouging by producers and distributors;
release 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
double tax credits for energy-efficiency home improvements and allow employers to create pre-tax flexible spending accounts for transportation costs.

Source: 2008 Alaska Senate Debate reported in Fairbanks News-Miner , Sep 9, 2008

Long term: develop ANWR; build renewable energy plants

Congress must put aside partisan politics and implement a national energy package, Begich said in a letter to Senate leaders. In his letter, Begich wrote that American families need immediate bipartisan action from Congress and the president to bring short-term relief from high energy prices. As for long-term solutions, Begich urged Senate leaders to:

open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to responsible oil and gas development;
accelerate the sale of leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska;
provide incentives for oil and gas federal lease holders to develop quickly and supply the Alaska natural gas line;
create an loan fund to retrofit public buildings for energy efficiency;
offer low-interest loans to public utilities for transition to more efficient and renewable power generation;
build vocational education programs that train workers to construct, operate and maintain renewable energy generation plants and transmission systems.

Source: 2008 Alaska Senate Debate reported in Fairbanks News-Miner , Sep 9, 2008

Support US participation in binding climate agreements

Q: Do you support caps on greenhouse gas emissions?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you support U.S. participation in binding international climate agreements?

A: Yes.

Source: Citizens for Global Solutions: 2008 Senate questionnaire , Sep 9, 2008

Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Mark will work across party lines to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. He will fight for an Alaska Energy Policy that includes building an Alaska natural gas pipeline and also developing Alaska’s enormous renewable energy--hydro, tidal, geothermal and wind. With fellow mayors from Southcentral Alaska, Mark formed the Tri-Borough Commission which is spearheading a balanced Alaska energy policy emphasizing new development, conservation and renewable energy. Source: 2008 Senate campaign website, www.begich.com, “Issues” , May 21, 2008

Alaska is ground zero for global warming

What I saw at Portage Glacier was, sadly, the rule & not the exception when it comes to the climate crisis in Alaska. Alaska is ground zero for global warming. I look around Alaska & see all the signs. Villages are literally being washed into the ocean. The polar ice cap is shrinking. Wildlife populations are being displaced and pests like the spruce bark beetle are destroying our forests. We have to do something. I’ve seen the value action at the municipal level has had in my city and around Alaska. Source: 2008 Senate campaign website, www.begich.com, “Issues” , May 21, 2008

Voted NO 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:

Water vapor
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
Sulfur hexafluoride
Hydrofluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons
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.

Congressional Summary:

On budget resolutions, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that includes a National energy tax increase which would have widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers.
The term "middle-income" taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in adjusted gross income and married couples filing jointly with $250,000 or less.
The term "widespread applicability" includes the definition with respect to individual income taxpayers.

The term "National energy tax increase" means any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming energy.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): The climate change proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This [amendment creates a procedure to block] any bill that would raise the cost of energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by. I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.

Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

Reference: Graham Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.910 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S135 on Apr 2, 2009

Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade.

Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.

Sec. 202 is amended by inserting at the end the following: "The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall not revise the allocations in this resolution if the legislation is reported from any committee pursuant to sec. 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974."

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): This idea to most people of a debate about reconciliation probably is mind-numbing and not very interesting. But there is a process in the Congress where you can take legislation and basically put it on a fast track. It is subject to 50 votes.

The whole idea of the Senate kind of cooling things down has served the country well. In that regard, to end debate you need 60 votes. If 41 Senators are opposed to a piece of legislation, strongly enough to come to the floor every day and talk about it, that legislation doesn't go anywhere. If you took climate change and health care, two very controversial, big-ticket items, and put them on the reconciliation track, you would basically be doing a lot of damage to the role of the Senate in a constitutional democracy.

Senator Byrd, who is one of the smartest people to ever serve in the Senate about rules and parliamentary aspects of the Senate, said that to put climate change and health care reform in reconciliation is like "a freight train through Congress" and is "an outrage that must be resisted." Senator Conrad said: "I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for this purpose."

I think both of them are right. Under the law, you cannot put Social Security into reconciliation because we know how controversial and difficult that is. I come here in support of the Johanns amendment that rejects that idea.