Kay Hagan on Energy & Oil

	Kay Hagan on Energy & Oil Democratic Jr Senator; previously member of State Senate

Advocate for Keystone XL pipeline

Sen. Hagan is caught in the middle of an issue that is splitting Democrats at the outset of this election year, the Keystone XL pipeline. She is an advocate of the pipeline, as are most red-state Democrats scrapping for re-election this year, and is anxiously awaiting to see whether the president approves or nixes the pipeline's construction. Source: Wall Street Journal on 2014 North Carolina Senate race , Feb 4, 2014

Opposed offshore drilling until August compromise

[In this Dole ad, called “Ka-Ching”,] Hagan’s stand on drilling is linked to her ownership of oil wells.

Quote: “Kay is against offshore drilling.”

Facts: Earlier in the campaign, Hagan opposed lifting a federal moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coastline. In early August, she reversed herself, saying she supports a bipartisan compromise that would allow states to decide on offshore drilling, promote alternative energy and repeal oil company tax credits. Dole, who had previously supported the moratorium as well, reversed herself in June.

Note: The ad portrays Hagan as part of “Big Oil” because she and her husband own oil and gas wells valued somewhere between $90,000 and $300,000. That’s a pretty far cry from the billions a company such as ExxonMobil has in assets.

Source: 2008 N.C. Senate Debate: ad analysis, Raleigh News&Observer , Sep 17, 2008

No tax breaks for big oil companies that give us $4 gas

Hagan twice linked Dole to tax breaks for big oil companies that have given back nothing but $4-a-gallon gas. Dole didn’t convincingly evade the charge but offered a good retort that Hagan had suggested nothing that would reduce gas prices. The Republican then proposed releasing one-third of the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve. The current inventory is just over 700 million barrels. Source: 2008 N.C. Senate Debate reported in Greensboro News-Record , Jun 25, 2008

Increase funding for R&D of renewable energy sources

In the US Senate, she will fight to reduce home heating fuel prices, push for higher fuel economy standards and replace tax breaks for Big Oil companies with new incentives for clean energy entrepreneurs. She will increase funding for research and development of energy sources such as wind, hydro, solar and biofuels. Source: 2008 Senate campaign website, www.kayhagan.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.