Tackle the challenge of catastrophic climate change
Q: What should the federal government's top three priorities be in setting a sound energy policy?
Ted Strickland: As governor, I was proud to put in place a groundbreaking clean energy bill that helped create 25,000 jobs, helped Ohioans save
$1 billion on energy bills and tackled the challenge of catastrophic climate change. I believe we must bring these same values to setting our national energy policy: we need to expand domestic clean energy production that will help create jobs;
tackle the challenge of catastrophic climate change; and encourage research, innovation and new technologies that will help America use and create energy affordably and efficiently.
And we can do this while at the same time revitalizing communities in Appalachia that have been hurt by changing forces in the energy market.
Stay out of Keystone XL discussions; it doesn't involve Ohio
P.G. Sittenfeld jabbed at Strickland for not voicing a position on the Keystone XL pipeline, a decision˙for which˙he has also received criticism from Rob Portman (R-OH). In August, Strickland said that he was "staying out" of
conversations about the Keystone XL because the pipeline "doesn't involve Ohio."
"Ohio's current Senators have already voted on Keystone XL. Those seeking the position need to take a stand. I'm strongly opposed," Sittenfeld said on social media.
Source: The Free Beacon on 2016 Ohio Senate race
, Oct 14, 2015
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.
Vote to amend a bill providing for exploration & production of mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. The underlying bill revises the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's guidelines for natural gas lease administration. Voting YES on the amendment would maintain the 25-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas offshore. Voting NO on the amendment would lift the 25-year moratorium, and establish incentives to renegotiate existing leases that fail to include market-based price caps.
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.
Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act;
Bill H R 4761
; vote number 2006-354
on Jun 29, 2006
Voted NO 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 NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.
To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes including:
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
Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act;
Bill HR 3893
; vote number 2005-519
on Oct 7, 2005
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.
Vote to pass a bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize o $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. It would add to the requirement that gasoline sold in the United States contain a specified volume of ethanol. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers.
Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2004;
Bill HR 4503
; vote number 2004-241
on Jun 15, 2004
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.
Energy Omnibus bill: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize a $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. The bill would call for producers of Ethanol to double their output. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Tauzin, R-LA;
; vote number 2003-630
on Nov 18, 2003
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
Require a combined corporate average fuel efficiency [CAFE] standard for passenger automobiles and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, of 26 mpg in 2005 and of 27.5 mpg in 2007. It also would offer incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol.
Vote on an amendment that would allow the implementation of the portions of the Kyoto climate change treaty that are already allowed under law. The Kyoto protocol of 1997, which aims to reduce emissions of certain greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, has not been ratified by the United States. The amendment would allow federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to implement procedures already allowed under law that are also part of the Kyoto accord before the treaty is ratified by Congress.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Olver, D-MA;
Bill HR 4690
; vote number 2000-323
on Jun 26, 2000
Rated 67% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence.
Strickland scores 67% by CAF on energy issues
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)
About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):
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.
Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006