Why Did Obama Vote For The 2005 Energy Policy Act?

[RestoreGore]

Is he looking to give more busniness to Archer Daniels Midland and the "clean" coal lobbies? (Clean coal, what an oxymoron.) He voted in favor of the 2005 Energy Policy Act which is an oil-friendly energy bill opposed by environmentalists. He cited the bill's support for 'corn' ethanol and 'clean coal' technology. This act passed and Bush signed it into law in August 2005. Why would anyone who cares for the environment vote for this bill? Granted, he was not the only one out of the Democrats to vote for it (which is really disappointing) but since he is now touting himself as a candidate who cares for the environment, why would he choose to give more money to the very companies raking in the profits already? He is not a corporate candidate? He also has accepted donations from Exelon corporation in exchange for his support of nuclear which he thinks is green. I am not liking his stance on the environment in regards to this and I think he is just talking the talk but is not really going to walk to walk. I don't much trust Hillary Clinton on this either as she too has taken corporate money and seems to have the same stance regarding ethanol. So, how can we trust that those who claim to be for the environment and facing climate change will really walk that walk when they vote for bills that actually exacerbate the problem?

[Abacus]

1. It increased taxes...

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.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Amazing! That bill has been denounced here for 2 years

But since we found out that Obama voted for it, it's really not that bad.

Whodathunkit?

--p!

[Abacus]

4. I understand that

the war is a good idea now, too.

[RestoreGore]

11. It was not an overall good bill for the environment

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/08/08/little-energy/index.html

And that is what concerns me as well about the future as those hwo claim to care still vote their interests. If you really want "change" you don't vote status quo.

[sandnsea]

2. without a movement for change

all we get is nibbling at the edges. This is all we'll get if we put Hillary into office because nobody will trust her enough to listen to a different point of view.

[Captain_Nemo]

5. Maybe it had to do with nuclear energy and Rezko's partnership with a Brit Co. to build in Iraq

Rezko owns Rezmar


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.

[KittyWampus]

17. talking about nuclear power, Clinton did a quid pro quo involving uranium mines

nice, huh?

It's one thing to talk about legit policy differences and voting records.

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Barack Obama supports nuclear energy development

So do I, for that matter.

Lots of people on the left do these days. For those of us who are aware of the intensity of the anti-nuclear faction, it is astounding that so many of them are for Obama -- the remainders of the Grateful Dead, and Tom Hayden, to give two examples.

Hillary is a little less enthusiastic. Edwards is opposed to it. (Also, can you explain the q-p-q about the uranium mines?)

And, yes, that is a legit policy and voting issue. Energy issues are among the most important issues of our era. That may just be my opinion, but I think I can support it.

--p!

[il_lilac]

6. thanks for the question

As you are, I'm struggling to decide who to vote for now that my candidate (JE) is out. I need clear answers, not snarky comments. I am really at a loss...

[Captain_Nemo]

7. She is committed to women and children. Have no fear that she will nominate

and anti-choice Justice because she will owe nothing to the religious right.

Here are two great articles on Hillary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lissa-muscatine-and-melanne-verveer/why-hillary-clinton-will-_b_83037.html

While personal appeal and oratorical skill are certainly helpful in building diplomatic ties and conveying goodwill, they aren't a substitute for strong relationships and demonstrated leadership on the international stage. And as valuable as Senator Obama's Kenyan roots and childhood in Indonesia are, these experiences are not, in fact, indicators of diplomatic skill or the knowledge of global affairs needed to navigate international relations in our treacherous world.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has been practicing public diplomacy for years and is widely respected around the world for her longtime commitment to international development, human rights and America's global leadership.

During the years that Hillary Clinton served as first lady, she became a symbol of America's human face and the values we cherish as a people. In an unprecedented role, she traveled to more than eighty countries to highlight the importance of investing in people. She gave voice to those living on the margins of society, particularly women and children, but also the poor. She put a spotlight on US development programs that offered solutions to pressing problems like infectious diseases, illiteracy


and this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lissa-muscatine-and-melanne-verveer/hillarys-unprecedented-e_b_76883.html?load=1&page=2

Anyone who doubts Hillary Clinton's international experience might consult with democracy activists in the Slovak Republic, who remember when she stood in solidarity with them and publicly challenged their new government's suppression of civil society.

They might talk to women - from the Philippines to Latin America to the Middle East - who can vote, own property, or go to school, because Hillary Clinton helped start a global women's movement for women's rights. Or they might travel to Africa and Asia, where Hillary Clinton visited countless remote villages to show how the poorest of the poor could become entrepreneurial and self-sufficient when given access to small loans.

[RestoreGore]

14. She basically has the same stances on the environment that Obama has

Why do they not see the climate crisis as the urgent challenge it is? Does she not know how that effects women and children?

[Captain_Nemo]

9. Here;s some stuff on Obama (of course, I am a Hillary supporter....:-)

Obama is associated with Rezko (his trial starts Feb. 25)

Rezko owns Rezmar (among others) and here is an article about Rezmar:

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=10211...


(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.

In the Las Vegas debate Obama got nailed by Hillary because he voted for the 2005 Energy Bill that was a giveaway to big oil. He said he voted for it because of Nuclear energy. She voted NO on it because she knew it was a giveaway to oil companies.

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

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.

[RestoreGore]

16. And I am becoming more disenchanted every day with the rhetoric and rock star appearances

That give us only hype.

[Captain_Nemo]

21. Thank you for that - very refreshing. Here is an email I got tonight from Robin Morgan

She is/was an activist feminist from the 1960s. this is compelling! Please pass on the article. So many people know so little about all the work she has done for children and women.

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

"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

[RestoreGore]

23. Sorry, not here to be brainwashed to support anyone else

[RestoreGore]

8. Russell Simmons Speaks About Obama

This also mentions his stances regarding nuclear and also ethanol. I actually found this article to be surprising... he actually supported John Edwards. To me both Clinton and Obama are corparatists, and I don't trust either one of them.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=34

[calmblueocean]

10. He and Durbin and Harkin voted for it mostly for ethanol reasons. You already knew that.

And this kind of legislative cherrypicking of major bills with multiple spending priorities is the definition of a political hatchet job. Obama has already said:

"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."

[RestoreGore]

12. He had the opportunity to do something bolder

Speak out! But he passed. As they all did.

[BootinUp]

13. I think its pretty clear that it was a good bill for Ill, subsidy wise

So I contend that is the main attraction for him and why he voted for it.

[RestoreGore]

15. Yes, well, that is politics as usual then n/t

[maximusveritas]

19. Yes, that's why Durbin also voted for it

but they won't admit it because it sounds bad to the rest of us.

[RestoreGore]

22. And is Durbin running for preisdent?

And did I not take tham all to task in my OP saying it was disappointing they had? Did you even read?Don't think Obama is untoucahble and uanccountable. He like eveyone else who runs for office must be... ESPECIALLY after the last eight years when he was part of a Congress that gave Bush EVERYTHING HE WANTED. So if you can't accept that it's your problem. I have held Clinton accountable many times and see no difference between them in regards to their "corporatist" leanings, and Obama who IS running in this system showed it with this vote.

[Levgreee]

18. Here is why Obama voted on the energy act

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."

[RestoreGore]

24. Well, environmentalists know that corn ethanol is bad for the environment

And also has a negative well to wheel ratio, and precipitates drought and famine...And he should know it too if he plans on running a country. I wonder if he knows anything about cellulosic ethanol? Oh, but ADM won't make any money out of that, will they?

[RestoreGore]

25. Will Obama and Clinton continue subsidizing Archer Daniels Midland as Bush wanted?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646

Where is the call to put aside corn ethanol and move to cellulosic ethanol? Neither we nor this planet have TIME for them to continue to give gifts to their donors.

http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=187

This is "change?" I expect this from Republicans. I thought Democrats were more visionary. Guess I was wrong. Where's the call for capping carbon now? Where is the call for a carbon tax now? Where is the call for the moratorium on all new coal fired plants now? This isn't a political game, it is about the future sustainability of this planet. And they obviously don't see the urgency of it if they can continue to vote for bills that only subsidize the same interests that Bush did.

[RestoreGore]

26. No answer to that question?

[Helga Scow Stern]

27. Was wondering that very same thing. n/t