Roger WickerRoger Wicker

Sen. Roger Wicker plans to oppose the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.  In this letter to a constituent, he writes, “I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change and is an unwarranted tax increase on the American people.” Wicker calls for more offshore drilling and nuclear power to boost energy supplies.

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation’s energy policy.  I am glad to have the benefit of your views on this issue.

It remains important that Congress work to ensure that the U.S. has an ample supply of cheap, abundant energy. While we need to continue developing alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass, the cornerstone of any new proposal must include exploration of our offshore resources and the expansion of nuclear power.

The U.S. Interior Department estimates there are 19 billion barrels of oil currently off-limits to production in our nation’s deep waters.  This equals the amount of oil we have imported from Persian Gulf countries over the last 15 years.  We should be able to develop our own oil resources. Last fall, Congress removed a decades-old ban on offshore oil and gas drilling and authorized the exploration of oil shale.  However, the Obama Administration moved quickly to put these projects on hold, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar delayed action on increased drilling off America’s coasts.

Currently, Congress is considering two bills relating to the reduction of carbon emissions. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the America Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) on May 15, 2009. On June 26, the House narrowly passed the legislation by a vote of 219 to 212. The Senate has yet to consider this legislation. In the Senate, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) on September 30, 2009.  Both of these bills require substantial reductions on carbon emissions, with the American consumer ultimately bearing the costs. I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change and is an unwarranted tax increase on the American people.

Knowing of your interest in the subject, I have attached a column I recently wrote addressing these issues.  Be assured I will continue to work for a comprehensive solution and will keep your comments in mind as Congress considers legislation affecting our nation’s energy policy.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

Climate CitizensTrack the climate debate and take actionWith best wishes,

Sincerely yours,

Roger F.Wicker
U.S. Senate

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.