| Energy Policy Act Of 2005 Vote |
Article Index for Energy Policy |
Website Links For Energy |
Information AboutEnergy Policy Act Of 2005 Vote |
|
The . ANALYSIS "No" votes came from the northeast states of Connecticut , Delaware , Maryland , Massachusetts , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New York , Rhode Island and Vermont . In the southwest, senators from Arizona , California , and Nevada voted against the bill. In the northwest, senators from both Oregon and Washington voted against. Both senators from Florida opposed the bill. Both senators from Connecticut changed their votes from Not Voting, to No. Of all sixteen states with at least one senator that voted no, only one of these had anyone on the conference committee. Not only was senator Ron Wyden the only senator from these states on the conference committee, he was also the only senator on the conference committee to vote against the bills final passage. SENATOR WYDEN'S OBJECTIONS Senator Wyden spoke in opposition to the bill including references to the occupation of Iraq and serious flaws in the policy of the energy bill. :"Our dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced as a result of this legislation. As a result, we have not reduced the prospect of going to war once again in the Persian Gulf in the next decade." The Senator referred to the relationship between the energy bill and fighters in terrorism. :"the Senate is about to pass a pre-9/11 energy policy. After 9/11, it became clear that energy policy was a national security issue and that reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to be a national security priority. That hasn't been done." :"So today Americans continue to pay what I call a terror tax--the price we pay in insecurity for our dependence on foreign oil. I call it a terror tax because when each of us pulls up to the corner gasoline station and pays $2.40 a gallon, or so, for gasoline, a portion of that money goes to Foreign Governments that in turn send it out the back door to Islamist Extremists who use the money to perpetuate hate and terrorist acts." "This legislation does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." Wyden offered an amendment during the conference committee to increase the automobile efficiency standards by 1 mile per gallon for 5 years in a row, offering that this would decrease demand for foreign oil. This amendment was not accepted despite evidence that this was easily in reach of the industry. Referring to unnecessary subsidies, Wyden quotes the President as saying, "when oil is trading at upwards of $55 a barrel, the oil companies are not in need of any more incentives." The senator concluded by saying: :"the most patriotic thing this Congress could have done in the summer of 2005 was to write an energy bill that did three specific things: reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gasoline prices for working families and businesses, and end the energy subsidy smorgasbord that has offered these heaping helpings of taxpayer dollars to the energy industry for decades." :"I am sad to say, as one who was involved in this from the outset as a member of the committee and the conference committee, that the final product does not accomplish any of those three things. It doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nobody has to take my word for it. That has been on the front pages of the papers all this week. It doesn't lower gasoline prices. And, again, you don't have to take my word for it. The President has already stated that. It doesn't end the subsidy buffet for the big energy interests, and you won't have to take my word for that either. You are going to hear those special interests breaking out the champagne bottles all over town in the next few days." Wyden was the only member of the conference committee to vote against the bill. Senate Record SENATOR CLINTON'S OBJECTIONS Senator Hillary Clinton 's vote was notable because it changed from Yes on the first vote, to No on the final vote. In the Congressional Record , she points out various failing of the bill, and repeatly mentions that the bill will do nothing to reduce dependancy on foreign oil. She said "I oppose the bill for two reasons. First, it contains a number of highly objectionable provisions. Second, it simply ignores several of our most pressing energy challenges, such as our dependence on foreign oil." The Senator cited problems in the bill including:
Senator Clinton objected to the following items being removed in conference committee or omitted from the bill:
Senator Clinton concluded by saying, :"I see a major missed opportunity. By the President's own admission, this bill won't do anything to reduce Gasoline Prices , but we know for a fact that it will give billions in tax breaks to companies like Exxon Mobil . It doesn't do nearly enough to push the development and commercialization of clean, next-generation energy technologies, but it gives huge Tax Breaks to nuclear power, a technology that has been with us for 50 years. And given what we now know about the looming threat of Climate Change , it makes no sense to make energy policy without integrating a cost-effective strategy to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. But that is exactly what this bill does." Congressional Record SENATE VOTE June 28, 2005, 10:00 AM Yeas - 85, Nays - 12
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE The conference committee, including 14 senators and 51 house members. The senators on the committee were: Republicans Domenici, Craig, Thomas, Alexander, Murkowski, Burr, Grassley and Democrats Bingaman, Akaka, Dorgan, Wyden, Johnson, and Bacus. FINAL SENATE VOTE July 29, 2005, 12:50 PM Yeas - 74, Nays - 26
Votes from all Senators SOURCES
VIEWING THE BILL
SEE ALSO Energy Policy Act Of 2005 |
|
|