Observe who voted for the "energy bill", recently passed by congress, and signed into law by president Bush.
Observe what it accomplishes, what it will cost American taxpayers, and who it primarily benefits.
Observe who voted for it, and who voted against it.
Ask yourself if the legislators who voted for this bill ,and the president who signed it into law were acting in the best interests of the American people, or against them. Are the people who vote for these politicians, voting against their own best interests because of their own ignorance or blind ideology?
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072901128.html
Energy Bill Raises Fears About Pollution, Fraud
Critics Point to Perks for Industry
By Michael Grunwald and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 30, 2005; Page A01
.....The provision was just one example of how the energy bill, touted as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil or moderate gasoline prices, has been turned into a piņata of perks for energy industries..........
.......For example, it exempts oil and gas companies from Safe Drinking Water Act requirements when they inject fluids -- including some carcinogens -- into the earth at high pressure, a process known as hydraulic fracturing. Betty Anthony, director for exploration and production at the American Petroleum Institute, said states already regulate the process, but residents of Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia and other states have complained that it has polluted groundwater in their communities.
Meanwhile, the measure will streamline Bureau of Land Management drilling permits -- even though the Bush administration already has granted a record number of permits on BLM land. Lawmakers also authorized seismic blasting in sensitive marine areas to gauge offshore oil reserves -- despite a moratorium on drilling in many of those areas. And the bill will exempt petroleum well pads from storm-water regulations under the Clean Water Act. Anthony said the provision makes sense because the wells are already exempt, but critics question why the oil and gas industry, which has seen record profits in recent months, should be exempt from any aspect of environmental law.
"This bill will allow America's most profitable companies to pollute our water supplies," said David Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society. "They're the kings of Capitol Hill."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also managed to insert at least $500 million in subsidies over a 10-year period -- with the option to double the amount -- for research into deep-water oil and gas drilling, a grant that many lawmakers expect to go to the Texas Energy Center in DeLay's home town of Sugar Land. The bill also includes royalty relief for deep-water drilling projects, a strategy that helped jump-start production in the Gulf during the 1990s.
"If you don't provide the relief, nothing will happen," said John Felmy, the American Petroleum Institute's chief economist. "The start-up costs are just too massive."..........
...........The bill passed the Senate, 74 to 26. All Maryland and Virginia senators voted for the bill yesterday, except Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.). In the House on Thursday, the majority of area representatives approved the bill, which passed 275 to 156 . Voting against it were Reps. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
During the debate over the bill's numerous subsidies, taxpayer groups questioned why thriving energy companies need federal aid to produce energy. But the bill's defenders say it is not realistic to expect newer and cleaner technologies to succeed their own. "They need a jump-start," said Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute.
Sometimes, they need more than one push. In the 1990s, then-Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) helped persuade Congress to spend $117 million on an "clean coal" plant in Healy, Alaska, but the factory was quickly mothballed. A potential buyer recently declared it "fatally flawed by faulty design and unproven experimental technology." Now Murkowski's daughter, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), has helped secure an additional $80 million in loan guarantees to convert the "clean coal" plant into something that works.
|
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...00213#position
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Conference Report (Conference Report H. R. 6 )
Vote Number: 213 Vote Date: July 29, 2005, 12:50 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 6 (Energy Policy Act of 2005 )
Measure Title: <b>To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.</b>
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)
|
Voters do not know how to vote in the best interest of themeselves and their families. Until they do, the list of politicians who have firm enough political bases of informed and logical voters, will be a short one, like the one above.
Logical to me, means figuring out what is in your own best interest, and voting for politicians who will represent those interests, and not the conflicting interests of huge, multinational energy companies. Note the party affiliations of almost all of the senators who stood up against this anti-American energy bill.