Claire McCaskill on Energy & Oil Democratic Sr Senator; previously state Auditor

Subsidize alternative energy, but build Keystone Pipeline

Josh Hawley (R): No. Criticized Obama's "job-killing `climate agenda'" and "climate change crusade." Backed lawsuit against Obama Clean Power Plan.

Claire McCaskill (D): Yes, but asked for more time for coal plants to implement Obama Clean Power Plan, while opposing its repeal. Opposed carbon tax but supports US participation in Paris Climate Accord.

Q: Support government subsidies for renewable energy?

Josh Hawley (R): Unknown.

Claire McCaskill (D): Yes. Supports alternative energy subsidies, but also recognizes Missouri's dependence on coal and supported Keystone Pipeline.

Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

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.

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 required)

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.

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

  Reference: Johanns Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.735 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S126 on Apr 1, 2009

  Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

  OnTheIssues.org Explanation:A "Cloture Motion" would end debate on the bill, and then allow a vote on passage. This motion failed (3/5ths of the Senators must vote YEA), based on objections of how the new incentives would be paid for.

  Congressional Summary:A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.

  • TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES
  • Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine renewables.
  • Sec. 104. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
  • Sec. 106. New clean renewable energy bonds.
  • Part II--Carbon Mitigation Provisions
  • Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment credit.
  • Sec. 115. Carbon audit of the tax code.
  • Sec. 121. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property.
  • Sec. 122. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
  • Sec. 124. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
  • Sec. 127. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.
  • Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design projects.

    Opponents argument for voting NAY:Sen. SPECTER: H.R. 6049 would revive important tax provisions that expired at the end of 2007 and extend provisions that are set to expire at the end of 2008. I support extension of the R&D tax credit, the renewable energy tax incentives, and many other important provisions in this package.

    Despite the positive elements of this legislation, the main sticking point is whether temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. The White House issued a statement recommending a Presidential veto of this bill in its current form. [Vote NAY to] allow the Senate to work its will and pass legislation that can be quickly signed by the President.

    Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-150 on Jun 17, 2008

    Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.

    OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This is a motion on an omnibus spending bill, sending instructions to the committee resolving differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Sen. Boxer introduced this motion, and Sen. DeMint introduced a counter-motion. Voting for the Boxer motion means you favor Boxer's method over DeMint's method, which means speeding up Congressional action on global warming.Opponents argument for voting NAY:Sen. DeMINT. When we are talking about trade agreements, there needs to be a level playing field. This motion would prevent Congress from passing any law with new mandates on greenhouse gas emissions that would harm the U.S. economy or result in job loss unless both China and India had the same mandates--in other words, if we had a level playing field. It is not going to help the environment in the United States or the world if we pass mandates that raise the cost of doing business in our country, if we create mandates that do not exist in India or China.Proponents argument for voting YEA:Sen. BOXER. I rise to speak against the DeMint motion and in favor of the Boxer motion. The DeMint motion is a throwback to 10 years ago when everybody, including myself, was saying we better watch out and not do anything about global warming until the undeveloped world acts. We cannot do that anymore. This is a time when we need to stand up as the leading country in the world and say that we can fight global warming, and we can win this fight.

    But what happens with the DeMint motion, he gives China and India a veto power over what we should be doing. Imagine saying we are not going to do anything about human rights until China acts. Why would we give up our chance to take the mantle of leadership and finally grab hold of this issue? I cannot look into the eyes of my grandchildren and tell them: Sorry, I am giving over my proxy to China & India, and I can't do anything about it.

    Reference: Motion to Instruct Conferees (China-India) re: S.Con.Res.70; Bill Motion to Instruct S.Con.Res70 ; vote number 2008-132 on May 15, 2008

    Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

    Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
    • 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.
    Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 65-27

    Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN); Bill H.R.6 ; vote number 2007-226 on Jun 21, 2007

    Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

    Voting YES would amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. It would be a violation for any foreign state:
    1. to limit the production or distribution of oil & natural gas;
    2. to set or maintain the price of oil & natural gas; or
    3. to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil & natural gas;
    4. when such collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil & natural gas in the US.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    Our NOPEC bill will authorize filing suit against nations that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    No one likes OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.

    The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is also very unwise.

    In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will be the international repercussions when the US starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country? Will other nations start to view our trade policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of their antitrust laws?

    Reference: NOPEC Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act; Bill S.Amdt.1519 to H.R.6 ; vote number 2007-215 on Jun 19, 2007

    Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning.

    Amendment would require the consideration of global climate change, in planning, feasibility studies, & general reevaluation reports. Would require accounting for the costs & benefits from the impacts of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought risks; potential future impacts of global climate change-related weather events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity, storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding; & employs nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that provide natural flood and storm buffers.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    It just seems logical that we ask the Corps of Engineers to include in their analyses, judgments about the potential impact of global climate change. All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their future plans. Secondly, we are making a statement here to finally recognize the reality of what is happening with respect to climate change.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    The same people today who are saying we are all going to die from global warming, just back in the middle 1970s were saying another ice age is coming and we are all going to die. Which way do you want it?

    If a surge of anthropogenic gases--this CO2, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming period, then around 1945 we would have a warming period because in the middle 1940s we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases. But what happened? It did not precipitate a warming period.

    Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been driving the temperature change. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the Sun can have something to do with climate change.

    Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of all goods would rise sharply.

    Reference: Kerry Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.1094 to H.R.1495 ; vote number 2007-166 on May 15, 2007

    Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Claire McCaskill. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Claire McCaskill. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Claire McCaskill. Click here for a summary of Claire McCaskill's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MO politicians. Click here for issue statements from MO primary archives. Click here for issue statements from MO secondary archives.
    Other candidates on Energy & Oil:		Claire McCaskill on other issues:
    MO Gubernatorial: Chris Koster Eric Greitens Jim Neely Mike Parson Nicole Galloway Peter Kinder MO Senatorial: Angelica Earl Austin Petersen Jason Kander Josh Hawley Roy Blunt Tony Monetti MO politicians MO Archives	Senate races 2019-20: AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Mooney(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Byrne(R) vs.Merrill(R) AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Mahony(D) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Harrington(L) AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D) CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D) DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D) GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Carter(D) GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Terry(D) IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Greenfield(D) ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Harris(D) vs.Jordan(D) IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D) KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) vs.Marshall(R) KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Pierce(D)	MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Rice(D) MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Carlson(D) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(g) MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D) MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Collins(D) vs.Bullock(D) NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D) NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R) NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(f) NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R) NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Rich(R) OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Workman(D) OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Romero(R) RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R) SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Tinubu(D) vs.Harrison(D) SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Borglum(R) vs.Ahlers(D) TN: Alexander(R,incumbent) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Hagerty(R) TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D) VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R) WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D) WY: Enzi(R,incumbent) vs.Ludwig(D) vs.Lummis(R)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
    Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-228-6326 Mailing Address: Senate Office SH-717, Washington, DC 20510

    
    
    
    
    
    Page last updated: Mar 20, 2020