Jeff Sessions on Energy & Oil

Republican Jr Senator (AL)


Surge in gas prices sucks out American wealth

Sessions and Figures agree that the economy, including the pump price of gas, tops their list of voter concerns before the Nov. 4 election.

Sessions, who serves on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he has pumped gas at stations across the state while campaigning.

“I’ve seen people in Mobile buy $5 worth of gas. That’s all they had,“ he said. ”It just drives home that this surge in gasoline prices is sucking out large amounts of our American wealth that they could otherwise be using on other things important to them.“

Figures said people are ”really finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. You hear that more than anything else--economy and gas prices.“

Source: Associated Press on www.AL.com on 2008 Alabama Senate Debate , Oct 11, 2008

More nuclear and more supply of oil and gas to meet demand

Sessions introduced the Better Energy Strategy for Tomorrow Act which calls on the US to create a bold, comprehensive national energy plan. This plan will move us toward relying on American energy, not foreign resources. It will strengthen our national security, foster economic growth and reduce harmful emissions. Sessions is a leading Senate advocate for increasing America’s rise of nuclear power. Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly component of America’s current energy portfolio. Over 20% of US electricity is currently produced by nuclear power plants, but it should be more. America can end its dependence on foreign oil only by developing alternative fuels and increasing domestic oil and gas production. By spurring investment in new technologies, America can develop alternative energies here at home and bring jobs back to rural America. Without increasing the domestic supply of oil & natural gas, America will not be able to meet increasing demand and the resulting high price of gas.
Source: 2008 Senate campaign website , Aug 12, 2008

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled, "No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases". In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous oxide
  5. Sulfur hexafluoride
  6. Hydrofluorocarbons
  7. Perfluorocarbons
  8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5 required)

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill Am183 to S.49 ; vote number 11-SV054 on Apr 6, 2011

Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.