This is what Mike Pence says in his 'Road Map for Indiana":
Click to Enlarge
This is a letter that was sent to Mike Pence:
SOURCE
August 14, 2012
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (August 9, 2012) " Indiana is the 4th worst state in the nation when it comes to exposing residents to toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants, according to an analysis released today in Indiana by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
How and why did this happen? What are your priorities? Aren't you ultimately responsible for passing legislation that protects the health and safety of Indiana citizens? Aren't you ultimately responsible for ensuring that federal guidelines are adhered to on Clean Air?
What gives? Are you the solution, or have you been the problem?
Knightstown , IN
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (August 9, 2012) " Indiana is the 4th worst state in the nation when it comes to exposing residents to toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants, according to an analysis released today in Indiana by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
How and why did this happen? What are your priorities? Aren't you ultimately responsible for passing legislation that protects the health and safety of Indiana citizens? Aren't you ultimately responsible for ensuring that federal guidelines are adhered to on Clean Air?
What gives? Are you the solution, or have you been the problem?
Knightstown , IN
This is his voting record on environmental protection and clean energy:
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
Reference: Reversing Pres. Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act; Bill H.1231 ; vote number 11-HV320 on May 12, 2011
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.
Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill H.910 ; vote number 11-HV249 on Apr 7, 2011
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean.
Reference: American Clean Energy and Security Act; Bill H.R.2454 ; vote number 2009-H477 on Jun 26, 2009
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill H.R.7060 ; vote number 2008-H649 on Sep 26, 2008
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.
Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-344 on May 21, 2008
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.
Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-344 on May 21, 2008
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:
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.
Reference: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act; Bill H.R.5351 ; vote number 08-HR5351 on Feb 12, 2008
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown biofuels in history. We know that America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to middle America, not to the Middle East.
This bill incorporates the Green Jobs Act, which will make $120 million a year available to begin training workers in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education for "green-collar jobs" that can provide living wages & upward mobility.
This bill incorporates the Green Jobs Act, which will make $120 million a year available to begin training workers in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education for "green-collar jobs" that can provide living wages & upward mobility.
Reference: New Direction for Energy Independence; Bill HR3221 ; vote number 2007-0832 on Aug 4, 2007
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.
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.
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.
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.
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.
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.
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.
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.
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.
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.
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.
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.
Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; Bill H R 4761 ; vote number 2006-354 on Jun 29, 2006
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.
Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act;
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:
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
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules.
No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-311 on Aug 1, 2001
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-317 on Aug 1, 2001
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
- Pence 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
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules.
Pence signed H.R.391
Amends the Clean Air Act to:
exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and
declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.
Amends the Clean Air Act to:
exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and
declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.
Source: Clean Air Act Amendment 09-HR391 on Jan 9, 2009
No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
Pence co-sponsored Free Industry Act
Congressional Summary of H.R.97:Amends the Clean Air Act to:
exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.
Congressional Summary of H.R.153, "Ensuring Affordable Energy Act":
Congressional Summary of H.R.97:Amends the Clean Air Act to:
exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.
Congressional Summary of H.R.153, "Ensuring Affordable Energy Act":
Prohibits any funds appropriated or otherwise available for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from being used to implement or enforce:
OnTheIssues Explanation:
- a cap-and-trade program (any regulatory program that provides for the sale, auction, or other distribution of a limited amount of allowances that permit the emission of one or more greenhouse gases); or
- any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of one or more greenhouse gases from stationary sources that is issued after January 1, 2011.
OnTheIssues Explanation:
These two related bills exclude the EPA from taking on global warming by defining greenhouse gases as a "pollutant." These bills do not directly oppose regulating greenhouse gases nor cap-and-trade; either could still be accomplished by an act of Congress. Instead, they REQUIRE an act of Congress, rather than letting the President and the EPA bypass Congress by regulatory implementation instead of legislative implementation.
Source: HR97&HR153 11-HR097 on Jan 5, 2011
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants.
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants.
Pence signed Roadmap for America's Energy Future
A Roadmap for America's Energy Future:
A Roadmap for America's Energy Future:
- Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a lease sale every 270 days in each outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning region for which there is a commercial interest in purchasing federal oil and gas leases for OCS production.
- Requires the federal share of proceeds of lease sales from newly open areas to be deposited in the American-Made Energy Trust Fund (established by this Act).
- Requires the Secretary to accept, in satisfaction of mitigation requirements, proposals for mitigation measures on a site away from the area impacted by exploration and production activities.
- Directs the Secretary to establish a leasing program for oil, gas and oil shale within the Alaska Coastal Plain (ANWR).
- Requires the Secretary to hold a lease sale offering an additional 10 parcels for lease for oil shale development.
- Directs the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to develop, construct, and operate a coal-to-liquid facility.
- States it is the policy of the United States to facilitate the continued development and growth of a safe and clean nuclear energy industry through reductions in financial, regulatory, and technical barriers to construction and operation.
- Directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue operating permits for 200 new commercial nuclear reactors.
- Removes all current statutory limitations upon the amount of radiological material that can be placed in Yucca Mountain. Requires the NRC to replace them with new limits based on scientific and technical analysis of the full capacity of Yucca Mountain for the storage of radiological material.
- Prohibits the President from blocking or hindering spent nuclear fuel recycling activities.
- Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit consideration of the climate change-related impact of a greenhouse gas upon any species of fish, wildlife, or plant.Source: H.R.909 11-HR909 on Mar 3, 2011