Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
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.
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.
Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.
More stories in this series:
Kent Conrad Sen. Kent Conrad’s colleague in the House, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), voted against the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, and Conrad says he wouldn’t vote for the bill either. He also joined with three other moderate …
Mark Begich Sen. Mark Begich beat out everyone’s favorite Senate curmudgeon, “Uncle” Ted Stevens (R), in a tight race last fall. And while he’s seen as a modest improvement in the environmental realm, he’s also a steadfast supporter of increased …
Blanche Lincoln Sen. Blanche Lincoln recently called the House climate and energy bill “a complete non-starter,” and pledged that the Senate would move more slowly in crafting legislation in order to address the concerns of specific legislators and regions. Lincoln’s …
Claire McCaskillSen. Claire McCaskill doesn’t think the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill that passed the House in June stands much chance of passing the Senate, and she would not support the bill as it stands. During House debate on the …
Get Grist in your inbox