Ron Paul on Energy & Oil
Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm


Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not
Q: Bush's energy bill provided billions of dollars in tax breaks & subsidies to the oil companies with the goal of boosting domestic production at a time of record profits. Do you support that?
A: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.
OnTheIssues.org Explanation:This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150Congressional Summary:A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incen 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 project
Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-344 on Jun 21, 2008

Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008:
Production Incentives: Extends through 2011 the tax credit for the production of electricity from renewable resources (e.g., wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower).
Extends through 2016 the energy tax credit for investment in solar energy and fuel cell property.
Allows a new tax credit for the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Extends through 2010 the tax credits for biodiesel (including agri-biodiesel)
Allows an alcohol fuels tax credit for the production of qualified cellulosic alcohol fuel.
Denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or any related products.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. MATSUI: Today's debate is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill restores balance to our energy policy after years of a tax structure that favors huge oil companies. Today's legislation will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. SMITH of Texas: I oppose H.R. 5351. While it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry. In 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6% of the US domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58% of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life.

Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 236-182

Reference: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act; Bill H.R.5351 ; vote number 08-HR5351 on Feb 12, 2008

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.
Amends the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to declare it to be illegal for any foreign states to act collectively to limit the US price or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. Denies a foreign state engaged in such conduct sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts
Proponents support voting YES because:

Gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, $3.27 a gallon, topping even the 1981 spike. This won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either.

OPEC oil exports represent 70% of all the oil traded internationally. For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but have done little or nothing to stop this. The time has come.

This bill makes fixing oil prices or illegal under US law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct. It attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve.

Opponents support voting NO because:


We can only affect OPEC subsidiaries in the US. So the result of this bill would be to hurt US companies while not affecting OPEC itself.
OPEC is a cartel, but we have to deal with it diplomatically. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed for US monopolies, not international state-run cartels.
We should focus on domestic policies to affect gas prices. We cannot respond to a short-term crisis with a long-term response.
Reference: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC); Bill H R 2264 ; vote number 2007-398 on May 22, 2007

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.

Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN); Bill HR 6 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-040 on Jan 18, 2007

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 YES 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.
Reference: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act; Bill HR 5254 resolution H RES 842 ; vote number 2006-228 on Jun 7, 2006

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; Bill HR.6 ; 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.
Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-311 on Aug 1, 2001

Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Amendment to maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development.
Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-317 on Aug 1, 2001

Voted NO 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

Repeal the gas tax.
Paul co-sponsored an amendment to the IRS code:
[Supports a House resolution] to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 4.3-cent increases in highway motor fuel taxes.

Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR1694 on May 3, 2001

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
Paul scores 0% 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

A lot of times when Ron Paul votes NO its because constitutionally he doesnt believe government should have a say one way or the other. He does believe that if you let the free markets work the way they are supposed to, competition will take care of the price gouging, etc. Unfortunately partially due to government involvement, they don't work the way they are supposed to. You tend to forget also that Ron Paul is an extreme fiscal conservative...why do you continue to think he would vote the same way a liberal would vote? Since he isnt even in the race anymore, why do you continue to poke the fire?




BTW...off topic but for anyone who gives a damn, Carol Paul is still in ICU in critical condition following 3 emergency stomach surgeries here in Houston.

Well done Graham.

Time to take off some of them diapers Ron Paul's been lazying in, to see the color of his s*** for a turn of rightly deserved spanking.

What is wrong with her? Do you know, RWS?

why don't you take this to a new thread as it has noting to do with the article or topic

Well, the environment is the area where I have disagreement with Ron Paul. However, how can you really dispute his reasoning? He is a strong believer in the free market. He believes the market is self-correcting, as did Milton Friedman, the economist. However, Ron Paul also believes that the government should not be involved in subsidizing industry. So he favors few regulations and no favoritism by the government.

He is swimming against the tide though because current energy issues would seem to demand heavy involvement of the U.S. government to wean Americans off imported oil, and oil in general, as the U.S. doesn't have the reserves that other countries do. But, as usual, our government chooses to play politics with this issue and invest heavily in ethanol, which has proven to be a poor alternative to petroleum-based fuel. The government chose to reward another favored industry - corporate farming. So, we really can't trust them to do the right thing by the American people, as they have proven time and again.

A true libertarian solution would be to set a monetary value on resources held in common by everyone that lives on this planet. Water, air, nature - all need to have a real monetary value, so that when they are affected or damaged in any way, someone pays. Right now, China is emitting huge amounts of pollution. This is not just affecting their country, but everywhere else as well. They need to be fined, but how do you do it? The U.S. needs to be fined as well for not getting the people on an energy diet. It sounds like huge state control to enforce these potential laws though.

I don't know whether this is consistent with, "Libertarian Philosophy" (or even if there is such a thing)
but it seems consistent with Al Gore's approach to energy and the environment. The political problem and probably one of the reasons Al Gore is not running for President of the US, is that such an approach eventually requires a functional World Government, to a greater extent than the US public is ready to consider.

I don't know if it's a true libertarian approach either, but it seems consistent with what Ron Paul has said on the environment. He considers the environment "property." As such, violations against the "property" would be adjudicated somehow. But the world government idea is not something he would favor - AT ALL!

Which suggest to me that he wants a bookkeeping system without an Auditor.

No details have been given

It was an "aside" ...hence the BTW....as if you have never gotten off topic.

If Ron Paul wasn't so set against finishing the war in Iraq I like a lot of what he's got to say.

Putting $10 billion a month down a rat hole is not something a libertarian cares for. I agree with this. Declare victory and leave like Vietnam. Are we fighting those Viet Cong over here like they said?

No David, but staying the course has succeeded. I just read a post rla made in the military forum, our goal has been reached and the Iraqis are in control of their country.