Please explain: Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill which gave money to oil companies

[Captain_Nemo]

and Hillary did not. She knew it was a giveaway. He said that he voted for it because of nuclear energy. (And, as an aside, Rezko is building a nuclear energy plant in Iraq)

Please, no hatred from Obama supporters. I would like a real critical and deep conversation.

[DesEtoiles]

1. My mind is made up and nothing will change it now.

[demo dutch]

4. My mind has been made up and nothing will change my vote for Hillary

[Captain_Nemo]

6. Great! That's democracy! Don't let facts get in the way of your thinking!

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. ...

:spray: :thumbsup:

[Kermitt Gribble]

34. Just keep your hands over your ears

and repeat: "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ..."

Brilliant post.:puke:

[BlackVelvet04]

56. Oh my God....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

la, la, la, la, la, la, la,la

[shaniqua6392]

2. I guess we will have to research that one.

I doubt you will get an answer from Obama supporters here on DU.

[BeatleBoot]

3. Links...please....links......

[demo dutch]

5. Here's your link

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

[BeatleBoot]

8. What about the Rezko Nuclear Plants in Iraq - where's that link...

[Captain_Nemo]

16. Here it is:Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company entered into a joint venture with a Briti

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=102117


(MENAFN) Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq.

The contract, signed with Iraq's ministry of electricity, calls for joint venture to supply power to Iraq for 10 years, according to a spokesman for Chicago-based Rezmar.

The 250-megawatt power plant is slated to be one of three power plants under construction at the same time. A Brazilian firm and an Iraqi company are building the other two.

The Rezmar joint venture will be based in Jordan. Construction is slated to begin this fall.

[BeatleBoot]

31. The Trump Card is Rezko Building Nuclear Power Plants in Iraq

Here's this guy, Obama, taking political contributions and dirty land deals from a Syrian born land developer that is building Nuclear Power Plants in Iraq.

Giving nuclear power to a state that is in shambles.

Then Obama, now that he's running for President, is running away from the contributions and giving them away to charity.

Unbelievable.

Politically, Obama is radioactive.

[Captain_Nemo]

69. Yes! And if I could figure this out don't you think the Repubs are basically building a database?

Hillary all the way!

[BigBearJohn]

79. oh, but don't worry. The repubs would NEVER USE THAT against Obama if he is the nominee.

Never in a million years. Nope. Never.

[gasoline highway]

77. Jesus christ...

Obama has no significant link to Rezko, neither does Hillary or Bill, they are both linked to them though.

[blm]

85. WHERE'S BushInc's JAIL SENTENCE for BCCI matters that Bill Clinton deep-sixed

so Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens could continue their drugrunning, armsdealing and nuclear proliferation without any congressional oversight with Bill Clinton in the oval office keeping the documents safe for them.

[jasmine621]

23. Don't worry about the links to any of this. The Rethugs will have plenty of them

if and when Obama gets the nomination.

[Captain_Nemo]

26. She is the more difficult candidate for them to beat. They are hoping for Obama.

[busymom]

9. Don't you know

that Obama's votes are all good no matter what?

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

12. Obama blindness syndrome.

He could vote to nuke puppies and his supporters would not notice.

[BeatleBoot]

15. OBS

That's because they need to step away from the Kool-Aid and think.

Use their own heads and think.

[busymom]

20. Yep...who else does this remind you of?

shrub

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

21. Are OBS and Dubya Blindness syndrome related somehow?

[Captain_Nemo]

27. They guy just says the same shit over and over again.....I liked her answer on Iraq in the last

debate. It was clear, well thought out. A real plan.

[Captain_Nemo]

10. Here is a link to The Hill:

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/01/07/the-obama-record-on-‘change’-vs-non-change/

Is that real change?

2. Supporting Dick Cheney’s Tax Subsidies-for-Oil Companies Energy Bill

Sen. Obama voted for the bill that contained billions of dollars of tax subsidies for oil companies. Sen. Clinton opposed it. Sen. Obama explains this by pointing to pro-conservation provisions of this bill. But he could have opposed this bill with the unwarranted tax subsidies and supported a separate bill on conservation and anti-global warming measures.

Is that real change?

3. The war vote

In October 2004, when asked how he would have voted on the October 2002 war resolution, for which he has criticized Sen. Clinton as the core message of his campaign in Iowa, had he been a U.S. senator at the time, Sen. Obama answered:

“I don’t know …”

When asked to explain that answer in March 2007 by The New York Times, his press spokesman, according to the Times story, refused “eight times” to answer the question.

Is that real change?

[jillan]

11. You can tell it was a bad bill - look at those that voted NO

NAYs ---26
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
-----------------------------

Maybe Kerry and Kennedy need to have a few words with their candidate?

[BeatleBoot]

13. Obama voted Yes?

Game set and match.

He's toast.

[Captain_Nemo]

17. he is unless people refuse to look at facts.

[Captain_Nemo]

29. excellent.

[Levgreee]

14. Any bill would likely give money to oil companies they are a gigantic portion of our energy industry

And if the Repubs were in charge, even more so. Any bill passed would have some of their ideas in it. You can't only pass what you want when you are in a compromised position.

but, I agree to analyze the bill, although I admit I do not have the credentials to do so. Can you find any article criticizing, supporting, or explaining the bill?

[Levgreee]

18. Here is Obama's explanation, straight from the horses mouth to judge

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_obama_says_energy_bill_helps_/

Obama Says Energy Bill Helps Illinois by Doubling Ethanol Use, Investing in Clean Coal

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama Friday voted in favor of the comprehensive energy bill, saying it will help Illinois and start America down the path to energy independence by doubling ethanol use, greatly increasing the availability of E85 ethanol pumps, and investing in combination plug-in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, as well as clean-coal technology. However, he warned that bolder action is required if lawmakers are really serious about dealing with the high energy costs that are plaguing American consumers.

"This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," said Obama. "It requires that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be mixed with gasoline by 2012. That's 7.5 billion gallons of fuel that will be grown in the corn fields of Illinois, and not imported from the deserts of the Middle East. The bill will also help triple the number of E85 ethanol fueling stations in the next year by providing a tax credit for their construction. This will help the millions of people who already drive flexible-fuel vehicles to fill their tanks with fuel made from 85 percent ethanol that is 50 cents cheaper than regular gasoline."

"I am also pleased that the bill includes funding I requested for research into combination plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, as well as more investment into clean-coal technology."

The Energy bill will do the following:

- Create a Renewable Fuels Standard that will nearly double the amount of ethanol used by 2012.

- Provide up to a $30,000 tax credit for the construction of E85 ethanol fueling stations.

- Provide a $1.8 billion tax credit for investments in clean-coal facilities.

- Provide $85 million to Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels.

- Provide $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and E85 flexible fuel vehicles that have the potential to drive 500 miles per gallon of gasoline used.

- Provide incentives to promote biofuels from agricultural resources.

While voting for the bill, the Illinois Senator also said he believes that the legislation still falls short of what could and should be done to put America on the path to energy independence.

"Although this a step forward, it's not a very big step," said Obama. "The Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation says this bill will do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it won't reduce the price of gasoline paid by hardworking Americans. Even President Bush and supporters of the bill in Congress concede as much."

"We could have done more today, and we should do more in the future. We must accept and embrace the challenge of finding a solution to our dependence on foreign oil as one of the most pressing problems of our time. It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice, but we owe it to ourselves and to our children so that we can bring down gas prices, protect our environment, and strengthen our national security. This should be one of our top priorities in America."

"So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence."

[Bodhi BloodWave]

19. Thanks, you just spared me the time to finish looking that up :) n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

22. It was a giveaway to big oil and Hillary voted no. She knew it was a giveaway.

[Levgreee]

24. You said he voted for it because of nuclear energy and you were wrong, why should I listen to you?

"This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," said Obama. "It requires that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be mixed with gasoline by 2012. That's 7.5 billion gallons of fuel that will be grown in the corn fields of Illinois, and not imported from the deserts of the Middle East. The bill will also help triple the number of E85 ethanol fueling stations in the next year by providing a tax credit for their construction. This will help the millions of people who already drive flexible-fuel vehicles to fill their tanks with fuel made from 85 percent ethanol that is 50 cents cheaper than regular gasoline.


I am also pleased that the bill includes funding I requested for research into combination plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, as well as more investment into clean-coal technology."

The Energy bill will do the following:

- Create a Renewable Fuels Standard that will nearly double the amount of ethanol used by 2012.

- Provide up to a $30,000 tax credit for the construction of E85 ethanol fueling stations.

- Provide a $1.8 billion tax credit for investments in clean-coal facilities.

- Provide $85 million to Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels.

- Provide $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and E85 flexible fuel vehicles that have the potential to drive 500 miles per gallon of gasoline used.

- Provide incentives to promote biofuels from agricultural resources.

[Captain_Nemo]

25. He said in the debate he voted for it because of nuclear energy. I heard him say it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. I remember him saying that in the debate.

[Mass]

43. Quote please.

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. well, I saw the debate, and heard the response, but if you are really interested

rather than being snarky, the debates are all over the internet. I am certain you can find it.

[Mass]

47. Here - Now tell me where he said he voted for it because of the nuclear?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/

Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel — that we had ever seen. And I think it is — we talked about this earlier — if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we’re going to have to ramp up how we’re producing energy here in the United States.

Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn’t build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let’s see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.

OBAMA: That’s why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We’re going to cap greenhouse gases. We’re going to say to every polluter that’s sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “We’re going to charge you a dollar — we’re going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there.” That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.

And if nuclear energy can’t meet the rigors of the marketplace — if it’s not efficient and if we don’t solve those problems — then that’s off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that’s going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now.

[Captain_Nemo]

65. Now let's look at Rezko's company Rezmar building a nuclear power plant in Iraq in 2005

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=102117

Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq. The ...


MENAFN - 31/07/2005
<-> Text <+>



(MENAFN) Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq.

The contract, signed with Iraq's ministry of electricity, calls for joint venture to supply power to Iraq for 10 years, according to a spokesman for Chicago-based Rezmar.

The 250-megawatt power plant is slated to be one of three power plants under construction at the same time. A Brazilian firm and an Iraqi company are building the other two.

The Rezmar joint venture will be based in Jordan. Construction is slated to begin this fall.


M thinks your candidate has some tricks up his sleeve.

[Mass]

82. Continue changing the argument and you will look more credible.

[Captain_Nemo]

76. here

here it is:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-tran... /

And, by the way, I am glad I googled it - now it will go in its own post!
RUSSERT: I want to pick up on that.

Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it.

That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, “The big winner: nuclear power.” The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.

We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.

Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?

OBAMA: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel — that we had ever seen. And I think it is — we talked about this earlier — if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we’re going to have to ramp up how we’re producing energy here in the United States.

Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn’t build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let’s see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.

[Mass]

81. Where does it say he voted for it because of the nuclear energy. Read what you posted.

[Captain_Nemo]

86. He tried slithering out of it but here it is..he's a politician, remember. And he voted for a shitty

energy bill. Either he was an idiot for doing so or he had a reason.

Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

[Marie26]

84. Looks like he didn't say that

He repeats the same spin that his press release has - that the Cheney lobbyist bill was such a victory for clean energy. Now, who actually believes that? He mentions that they should pursue nuclear energy if it can be done in a clean, safe way, but completely ducks the question about how many kickbacks the bill gives to the nuke power corporations.

[Captain_Nemo]

87. She is more qualified: listern to her voice.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

This is a commentary by Robin Morgan.
Thanks for reading. Jennifer

____________________________________________________________________________________________

"So listen to her voice."

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there
are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated,
or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of
human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It
is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire
and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a
violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities
and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It
is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women
ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a
violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families,
and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their
will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and
the right to be heard.”

That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese
Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the
full, stunning speech).

And this voice, age 22, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President
of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”

"Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates
running in both parties. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and
I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t
agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that
are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to
the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed
the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe
she will continue to make history not only as the first U.S. woman president, but
as a great U.S. president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am."

-Robin Morgan February 2008

[Captain_Nemo]

63. OK, Ill google it for you. But, if you don't know this then you need to read more about

your candidate and watch the debates, please. Didn't it occur to you to google it? I'll post it

[Captain_Nemo]

64. For the ones who don't want to google the Las Vegas debate to see Obama's quote:

here it is:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/

And, by the way, I am glad I googled it - now it will go in its own post!
RUSSERT: I want to pick up on that.

Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it.

That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, “The big winner: nuclear power.” The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.

We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.

Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?

OBAMA: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel — that we had ever seen. And I think it is — we talked about this earlier — if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we’re going to have to ramp up how we’re producing energy here in the United States.

Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn’t build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let’s see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.

[Marie26]

30. He was probably telling the truth

in the debate; while the press release is just the spin they sold to constituents. Obama gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Exelon nuclear power company; Exelon CEOs held fundraisers for Obama, and Axelrod actually worked for an Exelon subsidiary. Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill because two of his biggest backers, Exelon Corp. & Rezco, would benefit from the bill. That's the reason. I'm betting that if you closely at the 2005 Energy Bill, you'll find a number of giveaways & kickbacks for the nuclear power industry.


Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate -

"... A close look at the path (Sen. Obama's) legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. ...

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?em&ex=1202101200&en=f2853a7f59384438&ei=5087%0A

[Captain_Nemo]

32. I hope the Obama people really think hard about voting for their pretty face.

[Marie26]

36. And here's the payoff

Just looked up the bill on Wikipedia. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a number of "nuclear-specific provisions"; these provisions gave a $5 billon dollar tax break & a $125 million dollar tax credit to nuclear power corporations, authorized $2 billion in gov. money to pay for corporate cost overruns in the construction of new plants, ordered the Dept. of Energy to spend $1.25 billion to build a new nuke plant (who got that contract, I wonder?), and also indemnified nuclear power plants from any lawsuits for nuclear incidents.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
* Nuclear-specific provisions:<2>

* Extends the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act through 2025;
* Authorizes cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for up to six new nuclear power plants;
* Authorizes a production tax credit of up to $125 million total per year, estimated at 1.8 US¢/kWh during the first eight years of operation for the first 6.000 MW of capacity<3> ; consistent with renewables;
* Authorizes $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy to build a nuclear reactor to generate both electricity and hydrogen;
* Allows nuclear plant employees and certain contractors to carry firearms;
* Prohibits the sale, export or transfer of nuclear materials and "sensitive nuclear technology" to any state sponsor of terrorist activities;
* Updates tax treatment of decommissioning funds;
* A provision for the U.S. Department of Energy to report in one year on how to dispose of high-level nuclear waste;

Tax reductions by subject area

* $4.3 billion for nuclear power<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005


The most interesting provision is the first one listed: the energy bill extended the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act through 2025. This act protects nuclear power plants from any liability for nuclear incidents (leaks, meltdowns, etc.) So if, for example, a nuclear plant leaks & gives people cancer, those people cannot sue the company for compensation. Exelon actually failed to disclose that one of their Ill. plants had radioactive leaks, and Obama loudly scolded the company & touts the fact that he introduced legislation to force plants to report such leaks. The hypocrisy here is that while Obama claimed to fight to protect constituents from nuclear power leaks, he actually supported a bill that would give Exelon total immunity for their actions.

"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public... At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

The Act has been criticized by a number of groups, including many consumer protection groups. In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (see below). The Act was last renewed in 2005 for a 20-year period.

Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups due to a portion of the Act that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel", Public Citizen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Public Citizen - "Nuclear Giveaways in the Energy Bill Conference Report"

The energy bill conference report (H.R.6, “The Energy Policy Act of 2005”) negotiated between House and Senate conferees contains more than $13 billion in cradle-to-grave subsidies and tax breaks, as well as unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees, limited liability in the case of an accident, and other incentives to the mature nuclear industry to build new nuclear reactors. ... More taxpayer handouts to the nuclear industry are not part of a sensible and responsible energy plan.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13779

[Evergreen Emerald]

50. wikipedia can be changed by anyone. Do not use that as a reliable source.

[Marie26]

51. Fine

From Public Citizen:

Nuclear subsidies in the conference report include:

R&D subsidies = $2.9 billion

* Authorization of more than $432 million over 3 years for nuclear energy research and development, including the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs

* Authorization of $580 million over 3 years for DOE’s program for research and development of nuclear reprocessing and transmutation technologies, which reverses the long-standing U.S. policy against it and needlessly augments security and environmental threats

* Authorization of $420 million over 3 years for DOE to develop a plan to improve infrastructure at national laboratories for nuclear energy R&D, including a plan for the facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

* Authorization of $149.7 million over 3 years for DOE to invest in human resources and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and engineering fields through fellowships and visiting scientist programs; student training programs; collaborative research with industry, national laboratories, and universities; upgrading and sharing of research reactors; and technical assistance. This program would further subsidize the nuclear industry and entrench nuclear power research within the university system.

* Authorization of $1.1 billion over 3 years for the Fusion Energy Sciences program for fusion energy R&D. Authorization for DOE to negotiate an agreement for the United States to participate in the ITER (International Fusion Energy Project). Requirement of DOE to submit a plan for a domestic burning plasma experiment if ITER becomes “unlikely or infeasible.” The fusion process requires deuterium and tritium, and would produce low-level radioactive waste

* Authorization of $100 million for DOE to establish two demonstration projects for the commercial production of hydrogen at existing reactors

* Authorization of $18 million over 3 years for DOE to survey industrial applications of radioactive sources and develop a R&D plan for developing small particle accelerators

* Requirement of DOE to use 0.9 % of its applied energy R&D budget for matching funds with private partners to promote “promising technologies” for commercial use, which could include nuclear power technologies

* Authorization of $60 million over 3 years for DOE to give grants to train technical personnel in fields in which a shortage is identified, including the nuclear power industry, which has been very vocal about its shortage of skilled workers

* Authorization of $250,000 for research and development to use radiation to refine oil

Construction subsidies = $3.25 billion +

* Authorization of $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for 6 new reactors, including delays due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or litigation. The payments would include interest on loans and the difference between the market price and the contractual price of power

* Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and “such sums as are necessary” from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel, a boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals

* Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review

* Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of a project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated)

Operating subsidies = $5.7 billion +

* Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the industry’s liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years

* Incentives for “modular” reactor designs (such as the pebble bed reactor, which has never been built anywhere in the world) by allowing a combination of smaller reactors to be considered one unit, thus lowering the amount that the nuclear operator is responsible to pay under Price-Anderson

* Weakens constraints on U.S. exports of bomb-grade uranium

* Production tax credits of 1.8-cent for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation for the nuclear industry, costing $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Considered one of the most important subsidies by the nuclear industry

Shut-down subsidies = $1.3 billion

* Changes the rules for nuclear decommissioning funds that are to be used to clean up closed nuclear plant sites by repealing the cost of service requirement for contributions to a fund and allowing the transfer of pre-1984 decommissioning costs to a qualified fund, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13779

[Captain_Nemo]

54. Couple this with Rezko's partnering with a British company to build a nuclear power plant in Iraq

and i htink this is not such a "hope and change" candidate.

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=102117

Rezmar is owned by Rezko

[BootinUp]

55. Partial Nevada debate transcript

Full transcript here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15274/

RUSSERT: I want to pick up on that.

Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it.

That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, "The big winner: nuclear power." The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.

We haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.

Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?

OBAMA: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy (NASDAQ:CLNE) -- solar, wind, biodiesel -- that we had ever seen. And I think it is -- we talked about this earlier -- if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States.

Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don't want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn't build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let's see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.

OBAMA: That's why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We're going to cap greenhouse gases. We're going to say to every polluter that's sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "We're going to charge you a dollar -- we're going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there." That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.

And if nuclear energy can't meet the rigors of the marketplace -- if it's not efficient and if we don't solve those problems -- then that's off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that's going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, Tim, I think it's well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn't just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries.

CLINTON: It was the wrong policy for America. It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, you know, that's not going to move us on the path we need, which is toward clean, renewable green energy.

I think that we have to, you know, break the lock of the special interests. That's why I've proposed a strategic energy fund (TSX:SEF.UN) (TSX:SEF'R) , $50 billion to invest in clean, renewable energy.

How would I do that? Take the tax subsidies that were given in the 2005 that Dick Cheney wrote; take them away from the gas and oil industry. They don't need our tax dollars to make these enormous profits.

Let's put to work the money that we should get from the oil and gas industry, in terms of windfall profits taxes, so that we can begin to really put big dollars behind this shift toward clean, renewable, green energy.

It's not going to happen by hoping for it. And these small, you know, pieces of puzzle that are starting to take shape around the country are not sufficient for us to break our addiction to foreign oil.

CLINTON: So that 2005 energy bill was big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy. That's why I voted against it. That's why I'm standing for the proposition -- let's take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all the rest that we need for a new energy future.

[Mass]

83. Well, you make it clear that the person you are answering to is lying.

[BeatleBoot]

33. HE LOVES BIG OIL - THAT'S WHY

He reminds me of Bush.

[Blarch]

39. Jeeeesh.

In your feeble mind, nuclear energy ='s big oil ?

[BeatleBoot]

52. No, But Obama Voting for a $25 Billion Subsidy to Big Oil

makes me sick to my stomach.

Maybe you like giving that kind of money away to Big Oil, but I think I give them enough at the gas pump.

Obama loves Big Oil. He loves them 25 Billion times over.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

[Kermitt Gribble]

35. Sadly

I think most Obama supporters will react like reply #1.

[Mass]

38. Could it be they already knew that and that, in balance, they still find Obama better than Clinton..

[Kermitt Gribble]

42. No.

It's that most of them jumped on the bandwagon and know absolutely nothing about him.

[Mass]

44. Really. You know so much. I am impressed. Sorry, but I was supporting Obama for a while.

I know a lot about him AND Edwards's records. I prefer his.

[Kermitt Gribble]

60. I didn't

accuse you directly of jumping on the bandwagon, did I? Take a look around here at all of the rah-rah posts and immature accusations by some Obama supporters-most of which know nothing more than his name. There are also a few people here that I have the utmost repect for who are supporting Obama. It's easy to tell the difference.

[calmblueocean]

46. Oh, FFS. I don't believe for a second you read this bill.

I don't think you know anything about it beyond what the OP asserted. Cherrypicking votes on broad legislative initiatives like this that include funding for multiple priorities is the definition a political hatchet job.

I find it even more bitterly ironic that an Edwards supporter would try some holier-than-thou pose, considering John voted to deprive poor folks of bankruptcy protection, to trade with China freely, to go to war in Iraq, and so on. His record is packed with votes that demonstrate the opposite of his rhetoric, and yet it doesn't seem to have affected your opinion one bit.

A little humility and honesty goes a lot farther than snarky insults.

[Kermitt Gribble]

74. Good to see

you defend a voter who blatantly chooses to be uninformed. How Obamanian of you!

Every criticism of Edwards is about his votes while in the senate. He was a representative of a very red state when he made those votes and has admitted he would vote differently now. Maybe he was actually doing his job as a representative of the people of North Carolina?

Why don't you criticize his hair or his house while you're at it?

[calmblueocean]

78. Obamanian?

Do we really have to descend to this?

a) Read my post. I never defended the fellow you were criticizing. Sticking your fingers in your ears is no way to live.

b) I did criticize your holier-than-thou attitude. There's a big contradiction when you snark at another candidate's supporters by saying they won't investigate or vote on his record, when your own candidate has tremendous conflict between his own rhetoric vs. his record.

c) The notion that criticizing the vast difference between Edwards words vs. his deeds in Congress is like criticizing "his hair or his house" is just unworthy of you. I like JE, I think he's a good person, mostly because I've been so impressed by his wife, and I don't think you can fake a relationship like that.

But I can't ignore his record. When someone says poverty is the "cause of my life" and goes down "to the very core" of his being, but votes to deny poor people the protection of bankruptcy, that sets off big warning sirens for me. Edwards has admitted it was a mistake -- he doesn't try to excuse it the bizarre way you are, by claiming he somehow was forced into it because he was representing the state. And I respect his admission that it was a mistake. But he's also said voting for free trade with China was a mistake, and voting to go to war in Iraq was a mistake... those are some pretty big, serious mistakes, and they are part of the reason he wasn't my first choice.

Fair enough?

Obama doesn't have a perfect record, either. I wish the Rezko thing was not in play. But when I add up all the plusses vs. all the minuses, Obama comes out cleanly ahead for my choice for president. I think his strategy for expanding our base is clever and really plugged into the moment. People really are hungry for a national renewal in this country -- not just Dems, but Independents, and some decent, frustrated, ordinary Republicans. I know some personally.

I like Obama's government transparency initiatives, too. He wants to appoint a Chief Technology Officer for the government who would be in charge of getting government meetings webcasted, wikified, and blogged; putting the meetings between lobbyists and government officers online so they can be tracked by public interest watchdog groups... a lot of different things that I think will be profoundly good for government.

So, anyway, I don't know what you think an "Obamanian" is or supposed to be. I get from the context that it's an insult. I hear a lot of Hill supporters trying to call me a "cult member" now because I believe these basic things. I'm just a normal Dem voter who wants to make our government better and thinks Obama offers a good way of doing it. Less insults between all of us would lead to lots more understanding.

[Kermitt Gribble]

80. Fair enough.

Good for you-making a decision on who to support by actually researching the candidate. As I said before, there are some Obama supporters here that have actually done that - most, however, have not.

I don't support Obama because I don't like his unity, bipartisan, reaching out to republicans talk. Go check out the thread on Rush's quote on bipartisanship-I don't think this approach could possibly work with the right wing republicans. It hasn't fared so well for the current Dem congress. It's my opinion that we should be working to eject these criminals from our government, not giving them a seat at the table.

You can't support Edwards for his past voting record. That's fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think all the candidates have at some point regretted the way they voted on issues. I was uncomfortable with Edwards Senate record as well, but after watching him speak and debate over and over again, it became my opinion that he is sincere about his platform. I'm also uncomfortable with Hillary's corporate ties, but she will get my vote over Obama if it comes down to it. I will support Obama if he gets the nomination, he's just not my first (or second) choice.

Fair enough?

[Mass]

37. It is a vote I disagree with. I can tell you why he voted for it though, as did many senators from

the midwest. It was full of subventions for ethanol (in addition to those to oil and nuclear). Durbin, who has a great environmental record, vote for it as well.

This does not make the bill good and I would have preferred him not to vote for it, but I do not stop at one vote, either this one or the IWR. I make a balance of what I like and dislike among both candidates, and, in balance, I prefer Obama.

[jillan]

40. Feingold voted against it. Wisconsin is definitely in the midwest.

[Mass]

41. As I said, I disagree with this bill, but I will never be single issue. My choice is a balance just

like it was a balance for me to support Kerry. I never expect to find a candidate I agree 100 % with.

And you can only find 1 Midwestern senator that voted against it, and he probably voted against it exactly for the reason the others voted for it: he is against subventions, even if they go to Wisconsin. Feingold is one of my favorite senators, and you should read what he said about Clinton and Obama when it comes to government style. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

[jackson_dem]

48. Obamites refuse to acknowledge St. Obama has a record and it too is not perfect

[Mass]

49. No, most of us do. They just prefer Obama to Clinton.

[BeatleBoot]

53. Because of some other trait. Something other than their voting record.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

$ 25 Billion to Big Oil

Hillary: No

Kennedy: No

Kerry: No

Edwards: No

Obama: Yes


I pay Big Oil enough at the gas pump.

[Mass]

61. Sure, because of the voting record also. And interestingly, my two senators support him and not her.

As for Edwards, he never had to vote for it, and his environmental record is not that great.

[BlackVelvet04]

57. It's the ponies, isn't it? n/t

[Mass]

59. No, It is about knowing about them, what they did in the past and how they see government.

Nothing you could understand though.

[Captain_Nemo]

70. nuclear power plants in Iraq, good god.

[Abacus]

58. Wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stacking_the_deck.html

Clinton once again mischaracterized the 2005 energy bill, saying it had "enormous giveaways" to oil and gas companies. In truth, the measure raised taxes on those industries.
...

Hillary's Oil Slick, Again

Obama and Clinton dueled over the 2005 energy bill, but Clinton once again painted a false picture of what the measure contained. She continued to repeat her misleading claim that it had "enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries," when in fact it resulted in a net increase in taxes on oil and gas companies.

Clinton: Well, Tim, I think it's well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn't just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries. ... It was the wrong policy for America. It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, you know, that's not going to move us on the path we need, which is toward clean, renewable green energy.

This is the third time we've pointed out Clinton's distortion of this legislation. She is continuing a bogus line of attack that we debunked when Democrats deployed it widely in the 2006 congressional elections. While it's true that Republican lawmakers had once considered large tax breaks for oil and gas companies in the bill, the biggest of them had been stripped out of the bill by the time it passed.

Once again, it’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of them weren't for the oil and gas industry. They went mainly to electric utilities for such things as incentives for new transmission lines and "clean coal" facilities, and also for incentives for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the bill did give $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, but what Clinton fails to acknowledge is that those breaks were more than offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases. The net result was a $300 million tax increase over 11 years on oil and gas companies.

Obama was closer to the truth when he said the 2005 bill (which he supported) was "the largest investment in clean energy ... that we had ever seen."

Obama: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy – solar, wind, biodiesel – that we had ever seen. And I think it is – we talked about this earlier – if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States.

We don't know offhand whether there have been bigger tax breaks for clean energy in the past, but the 2005 bill certainly contained a lot of incentives aimed at clean energy and conservation. At the time the bill was being considered, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it included $1.6 billion for "clean coal" facilities and $1.3 billion in incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel and incentives for buying alternative vehicles in the form of a tax credit. The bill also contained just under $1.3 billion for energy conservation incentives, including tax credits for homeowners who install certain energy-saving equipment or businesses that install stationary microturbine power plants.

[Captain_Nemo]

67. This is n"t about Hillary. Look who voted NO on this thing.

NAYs ---26
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
---------------

[dionysus]

62. Rezko has his own nuclear plant? in IRAQ?!?!

where will you guys go next....

:rofl:

[Renew Deal]

66. That bill put more hybrids on the road than any legislation in history.

So it wasn't all bad. The offshore drilling portion was a nightmare.

[Captain_Nemo]

68. The point is this: Obama isn't into change so much and he is the least experienced. Goddess help us.

[Renew Deal]

71. I think you proved yourself wrong.

Voting for the largest invenstment in clean energy in American history is a vote for change.

[Captain_Nemo]

72. it was a giveaway to big oil.

[Renew Deal]

73. Who wholly

[Captain_Nemo]

75. Oil and Gas subsidies - 6 Billion. :article on Obama's energy bill that he voted on

http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=13980

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill; on July 28,the U.S. House of Representatives voted 275 to 156 to approve the energy bill; and on July 29, the U.S. Senate voted 74 to 26 to approve the energy bill.

Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.

This energy bill will do nothing to address America’s energy problems; rather, it will make matters worse. The United States is one of the largest producers of energy—for example, we are the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world—so our problem is not that we don’t produce enough energy, but that our rates of consumption are among the highest of all countries. Our economic competitors in Europe and Asia typically use half the energy per person than we do, which helps explain why the United States alone uses 25% of the world’s energy every day. Reflecting the fact that energy companies helped write the legislation, the energy bill lavishes these lucrative corporations with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, while doing little to curb energy demand.

In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers.

Below is a summary of the major components of the energy legislation: