How the US oilcos bought HR6

[boutons_]

Senate Passes Bill to Reduce Oil Dependency
Important Provisions Stripped After Oil Industry Mugging
Published December 13, 2007

Statement by Larry Schweiger
President & CEO, National Wildlife Federation
Regarding Passage of Watered Down U.S. Senate Energy Bill

"Today the Senate passed an energy bill that helps reduce America’s oil dependency and takes an important step toward reducing global warming pollution. Unfortunately, the bill does not close $13 billion worth of tax loopholes and subsidies for the oil industry and reinvest the money in clean and renewable energy technologies. Earlier in the day, 40 Senators blocked the bill, forcing Senate leaders to jettison the tax provisions.

"Oil companies have given $8 million to Senators over the past four years. Today’s action by 40 Senators proved they have gotten their money’s worth:$1,600 in tax breaks for every dollar the oil industry has spent in campaign contributions. For a breakdown of oil and gas company contributions to senators who blocked a measure to rollback oil company giveaways, see related documents.

( the corps managed to buy enough legislators and spread enough lies so that CAFE was unchanged for 30 years, and now the corps have 13 more years to meet the new CAFE. )

"We applaud the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who pressed several times for more comprehensive clean energy measures. In the end, Sen. Reid was still able to pass through the Senate the first congressional overhaul of fuel economy standards since the era of the 8-track tape player.

"The bill increases vehicle fuel economy standards by 40 percent and will save consumers $40 billion a year at the pump and help spur innovation and new American jobs. Its improved energy efficiency standards covering a wide range of products, lighting and buildings will also benefit American consumers.

( bullshit, by the time the new CAFE is met (if ever), the $40B will easily be spent on higher gas prices )

"The Energy Bill also improves provisions that boost homegrown biofuels and reduce our dependency on oil. The improvements include performance-based standards to ensure biofuels significantly curb global warming pollution and help to ease some of the impacts of biofuels production on wildlife and native habitats. National Wildlife Federation has advocated for these additional standards as important protections for the future of wildlife.

"Today’s energy bill is an important step, but the work of the U.S. Senate on global warming remains unfinished. The Senate should quickly build on this measure and take up comprehensive legislation that tackles global warming head-on. We must start now and put ourselves on track to reduce pollution by two percent each and every year, ultimately cutting pollution by 80 percent by mid-century. We can do that. The recent Senate Environment Committee victory to approve the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act is another sign that Congress is ready to do more on global warming."

http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageId=D5668608-F1F6-7B10-3BE0FD3C6B3475B4 http://www.nwf.org/images/clear.gif


Who Blocked a Measure to Rollback Oil Company Giveaways on HR 6

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

SENATOR OIL & GAS CONTRIBUTIONS over past 4 years

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $577,556
John Cornyn (R-TX) $561,380
Bob Corker (R-TN) $215,350
Pat Roberts (R-KS) $205,850
James Inhofe (R-OK) $196,700
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $150,500
Pete Domenici (R-NM) $145,950
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) $140,700
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $133,650
Christopher Bond (R-MO) $129,350
Sam Brownback (R-KS) $129,155
Trent Lott (R-MS) $124,300
George Voinovich (R-OH) $122,050
Arlen Specter (R-PA) $119,878
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) $98,300
Jim Bunning (R-KY) $98,269
John Ensign (R-NV) $95,100
David Vitter (R-LA) $81,100
Michael Crapo (R-ID) $63,650
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) $58,800
Robert Bennett (R-UT) $58,700
Thad Cochran (R-MS) $58,500
Richard Shelby (R-AL) $56,800
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $53,400
Ted Stevens (R-AK) $44,700
Michael Enzi (R-WY) $42,500
John Sununu (R-NH) $41,900
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) $41,250
Larry Craig (R-ID) $33,500
Judd Gregg (R-NH) $31,500
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) $29,600
Richard Burr (R-NC) $28,750
John Barrasso (R-WY) $27,500
Johnny Isakson (R-GA) $25,200
Jim DeMint (R-SC) $23,722
Mel Martinez (R-FL) $17,000
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) $16,600
Tom Coburn (R-OK) $9,600
John Warner (R-VA) $9,500
Wayne Allard (R-CO) $0*

Total $4,097,810

*Sen. Allard was last re-elected in 2002 and will be retiring in 2008

================

39 Repugs, 1 Dem

Repugs doing what's best for America! :lol

[SouthernFried]

Dumber and Dumber

[Nbadan]

Reducing oil dependency is a good thing....but it should be paid with the $1/gallon subsidy the oil companies are receiving because of the Neo-Cons ill-conceived mis-adventure into Iran...ooopsss...Iraq....

[Twisted_Dawg]

Glad to see our own two whores are at the top of the list!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't it obvious?

The oil companies pay too much in taxes already, so they contribute to republicans because democrats want to tax them more if they get their way!

They are not buying anything, but voting with their money!

[Nbadan]

Correction: They're voting with our money, for government subsidies when they are making record profits...were is the 'conservative' outrage?!?

[Clandestino]

just as cities give tax breaks to companies, the fed does too. would you rather have companies take their businesses elsewhere?

[boutons_]

The corps are managing and corrupting govt to their own advantage.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12966

For starting his bogus Iraq war that enriched Halliburton, dickhead himself is nearly $8M richer. iow, dickhead had a vested financial interest in invading Iraq. He knew that he'd get State and Defense to award (no-bid) multi $B contracts to Halliburton, many of which were corrupt and not completed, now being half-assed investigated.

[Wild Cobra]

Correction: They're voting with our money, for government subsidies when they are making record profits...were is the 'conservative' outrage?!?
Bullshit.

A subsidy is not a tax break. Politicians call it that, but look at defined terms in any government document containing the term, and a tax break is never called a subsidy. It is payment. Show me...

Even if they get some revenue somehow, for the life of me I think not... They pay so much in taxes, it would be trivial.

Relevancy besides propaganda? Have any?

This thing about our money...

The oil companies would just find a way to charge us more and get it from us consumers anyway. You know why tax breaks are given? To entice a certain behavior. Company X and Company Y are competing and it is requested to start to look for new resources by the government. They both reply “I cannot incur those costs unless my competitor does, or I will be in a competitive disadvantage.” Uncle Sam then says OK, I will give you a tax break if you do A, B, and C. The incentive now exists to be the first to incur the costs, not the last.

This is what tax breaks are often used for. Increasing taxes discourages certain behaviors, and decreasing taxes provide incentives for certain behaviors. That's why our economy grows when we reduce taxes. These tax breaks are often misused my politicians, especially when they pit the social classes against each other. However, in the end, the consumer pays the corporate taxes. Not the corporations.

[Wild Cobra]

The corps are managing and corrupting govt to their own advantage.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12966

For starting his bogus Iraq war that enriched Halliburton, dickhead himself is nearly $8M richer. iow, dickhead had a vested financial interest in invading Iraq. He knew that he'd get State and Defense to award (no-bid) multi $B contracts to Halliburton, many of which were corrupt and not completed, now being half-assed investigated.



The stock options may be in his name, but he cannot do anything with them. Besides, the article is lying about something. The stock value hasn't increased that much:

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/h/hal

As for the defered payments, they were set up when he left as his golden parachute, and has little to do with anything Cheney can influence.

Now why do you bring up an old article? Is it because the value of Halliburton started climbing from $10 per share to past $30, after the 2001 recession? Wow... the stock finally has the approximate value it did when Cheney left Halliburton! Before that, he lost value in stock! It was about $24 per share when Cheney retired from Halliburton, and about $28 per share at the time of this article. That growth is below inflation, so didn't Cheney actually lose money in real value?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Isn't it obvious?

The oil companies pay too much in taxes already, so they contribute to republicans because democrats want to tax them more if they get their way!

They are not buying anything, but voting with their money!


poor oil companies... they are suffering so much. :rolleyes


didn't they just post the largest profit in the history of the world?

[Wild Cobra]

poor oil companies... they are suffering so much. :rolleyes


didn't they just post the largest profit in the history of the world?
Yes, it's a huge number. I challenge you to look up what that equates to in profit per share and profit as a percentage of share price, then compare that with inflation.

Are you forgetting as inflation keeps driving all values up from year to year, that the raw numbers in general will always be higher from year to year?

Please stop being a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming. Look for the facts behind the propaganda.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, it's a huge number. I challenge you to look up what that equates to in profit per share and profit as a percentage of share price, then compare that with inflation.

Are you forgetting as inflation keeps driving all values up from year to year, that the raw numbers in general will always be higher from year to year?

Please stop being a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming. Look for the facts behind the propaganda.


what did i say that was not based in fact?

[Wild Cobra]

Back to the topic on hand, HR-6:

HR 6 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6pp.txt.pdf)

HR6 isn’t defeated because of corporate oil interests, but because it is a seriously stupid set of regulations.

You people should really read up on what you advocate first. This bill was defeated because of the items placed in by democrats friends, those making money on renewable fuels. Most of these renewable fuels serve no good for the stated purpose, and only increase the costs. HR-6 will pass with the CAFE standard increases, just not the punitive nature of the bill as is. Here is a list of dictated standards just for renewable fuel:


Applicable volume of renewable fuel
Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):

2008 ................. 8.5
2009 ................. 10.5
2010 ................. 12.0
2011 ................. 12.6
2012 ................. 13.2
2013 ................. 13.8
2014 ................. 14.4
2015 ................. 15.0
2016 ................. 18.0
2017 ................. 21.0
2018 ................. 24.0
2019 ................. 27.0
2020 ................. 30.0
2021 ................. 33.0
2022 ................. 36.0.


Applicable volume of advanced biofuels
Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):

2016 ................. 3.0
2017 ................. 6.0
2018 ................. 9.0
2019 ................. 12.0
2020 ................. 15.0
2021 ................. 18.0
2022 ................. 21.0.

I didn't look for it, but I heard there is also a state wide requirement for energy production to be 15% or more renewable. States not meeting this standard will he heavily penalized. This is why the bill failed. Renewable does not include hydroelectric or nuclear. How many states have enough wind, geothermal, etc. to generate 15% of their electricity that way?

Now back to the CAFE standards. If a minimum of E15 is required to be in gasoline, it makes it harder to meet the mileage standards unless that is taken into account. Alcohol has less energy than gas, and the more alcohol in gasoline, the less mileage you get!

[Wild Cobra]

what did i say that was not based in fact?
It is misleading fact because of the way it is continually refered to today. Like the term "gay". It means so much different than it did in the 20's. The old definition still applies, but what comes to mind with the term is different.

What you did was mislead... Propaganda...

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a little more of the failed legislation. Under section 262 titled “FEDERAL REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY.”

Part of the text:



(1) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting through the Secretary, shall require that, to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable, of the total quantity of domestic electric energy the Federal Government consumes during any fiscal year, the following percentages shall be renewable energy from facilities placed in service after January 1, 1999:

‘‘(A) Not less than 10 percent in fiscal year 2010.

‘‘(B) Not less than 15 percent in fiscal year 2015.

‘‘(2) CAPITOL COMPLEX.—The Architect of the Capitol, in consultation with the Secretary, shall ensure that, of the total quantity of electric energy the Capitol complex consumes during any fiscal year, the percentages prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be renewable energy.


Can someone please explain to me how we can meet 10% of our electricity production as wind, solar, etc. by 2010?

[Wild Cobra]

One more thing. HR 6 passed with 86 senate votes on 12/13/07 after amendments from the senate. Here are those who did not vote in the affirmative:

Barrasso (R-WY)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Now the house has to agree to the senate amendments for it to be sent to the president. I trust if the democrats are OK with the new version, not adding the punitive regulations in again, the president will sign it into law.

It passed the first time in the house 264-163 with 36 republican supporters. If the Marxist dims let the bill stand as is now, my estimate is that it will get the support of about 150 to 160 republicans.

Wait and see…

[boutons_]

WC, you condescending, conceited, self-congratulating prick.

''HR6 isn’t defeated because of corporate oil interests, but because it is a seriously stupid set of regulations"

proof? an iota of evidence? Of course the Repugs Senators may give the same spin to their votes as you do, but that is of course bullshit cover for their voting to please their corporate owners.

If HR6 was so bad, how did so many House Repugs vote for its passage?

Senators are cheaper in total $$ for corps to purchase, since there are fewer of them.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, you condescending, conceited, self-congratulating prick.

Why thank-you... After all, I only act that way to those who deserve it!

I think it's just that when I show factual data, you are unable to dispute it, as much as you want to.



''HR6 isn’t defeated because of corporate oil interests, but because it is a seriously stupid set of regulations"

proof? an iota of evidence? Of course the Repugs Senators may give the same spin to their votes as you do, but that is of course bullshit cover for their voting to please their corporate owners.

Have proof otherwise? Now I did miss-speak. I meant it included some seriously stupid regulations.

Doesn't it make sense the oil companies support the republicans? Democrats are always talking about raising taxes, republicans talk about lowering taxes. More specifically, it is socialists and liberals vs. conservatives and libertarians. Like all of us, they support tha candidates that are best for their position. It doesn't mean the republicans votes are being bought.



If HR6 was so bad, how did so many House Repugs vote for its passage?

So many? 14 is many?

Wow... is that as high as you can count? Is that why it is many?

Lets see. democrats; 221 YES 7 NO... 96.93% yes, 3.07% no. Republicans; 14 YES, 174 NO... 7.45% yes, 92.55% no.

Wow... under 10%....

Now the senate originally had:

democrats 48 yes 1 no (97.96%/2.04%)
Republicans 9 yes 39 no 1 not voting (18.75%/81.25% of those voting)
Both independents yes.

After changes, the vote was:

democrats 44 yes 1 no 4 not voting (97.78%/2.22% of those voting)
republicans 40 yes 7 no 2 not voting (85.11%/14.89% of those voting)

Here is the house vote you say so many republicans voted for:

Roll Call 1140 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml)



Senators are cheaper in total $$ for corps to purchase, since there are fewer of them.

If you say so. The facts don't coincide with what you say.

If the senators were bought, and the house republicans were not, why did 92.55% of the un-bought house republicans vote no and less republican senators... 81.25% not no?

Either the house was bought also, or the senators were not!

[Wild Cobra]

Now the house has to agree to the senate amendments for it to be sent to the president. I trust if the democrats are OK with the new version, not adding the punitive regulations in again, the president will sign it into law.

It passed the first time in the house 264-163 with 36 republican supporters. If the Marxist dims let the bill stand as is now, my estimate is that it will get the support of about 150 to 160 republicans.

Wait and see…
Ok, OK... I was wrong. I estimated more house republicans would vote YES than did. Only 95 votes YES. Still, that's 81 more than on 12/6/07. 96 voted NO, and 10 didn't vote. The democrat vote changed little. 219 YES, 4 NO, and 5 not voting.

H R 6 YEA-AND-NAY 6-Dec-2007 3:31 PM (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml)

H R 6 YEA-AND-NAY 18-Dec-2007 1:45 PM (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1177.xml)

12/18/2007:
Cleared for White House.
12/18/2007:
Presented to President.
12/19/2007:
Signed by President.

Boutons, apparently the oil companies didn't pay off the republicans enough, right?

[boutons_]

it's a stupid bill, pumping $Bs of tax $ into ethanol (wrong solution),
giving auto cos 13 years to meet 35 years, way too long.

now the EPA is slapping CA and other states who want stricter, more aggressive, quicker regulations:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/19/1175288-epa-denies-calif-greenhouse-gas-waiver

[Wild Cobra]

it's a stupid bill, pumping $Bs of tax $ into ethanol (wrong solution),
giving auto cos 13 years to meet 35 years, way too long.

You meant MPG, not years, right?

I too disagree with subsidies and ethanol not being the right solution. Farmers were once paid not to grow, not ethanol is subsidized at $0.51 per gallon, and that's not the end of it. Now actually, 13 years is not a bad timeframe. The pressure will be on to see who can make the best system the cheapest to obtain those goals, and still give us the vehicles we want. Competition breeds new technology. Now I am one that doesn’t believe the goal is realistic. I believe congress a few years out will ease off on the MPG requirement. I do hope the auto makers surprise me and hit the 35 MPG goal. I’ve covered the problems before that show the reason we do not have as high of mileage cars as other countries. Please don’t make me repeat them.



now the EPA is slapping CA and other states who want stricter, more aggressive, quicker regulations:

Yes, I know. Problem is, the only way to comply with what those idiots in CA wanted would be to have carbon capture devices in out cars. Kind of silly since power is released by releasing the Carbon from the hydrocarbon chains! Recapturing the carbon would require quite a bit of power from the engine and there goes the mileage.

[boutons_]

35 mpg

"only way to comply with what those idiots in CA wanted would be to have carbon capture devices in out cars."

did the Californians says that or did you just invent a straw man?

[Wild Cobra]

35 mpg

"only way to comply with what those idiots in CA wanted would be to have carbon capture devices in out cars."

did the Californians says that or did you just invent a straw man?
If you know chemistry, and how fuel burns to creates energy, then you would understand.

[scott]

If you know chemistry, and how fuel burns to creates energy, then you would understand.

Example for the chemistry-challenged:

No muffler on your car = significantly improved gas milage
Stricter muffler on your car = significantly reduced gas milage

[scott]

it's a stupid bill, pumping $Bs of tax $ into ethanol (wrong solution),
giving auto cos 13 years to meet 35 years, way too long.

now the EPA is slapping CA and other states who want stricter, more aggressive, quicker regulations:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/19/1175288-epa-denies-calif-greenhouse-gas-waiver

Glad to see you backing away from the crack pipe to talk some real stuff here...

1) Ethanol (the American version of of the solution that is) is definitely the wrong solution, but since there is no public backlash against supporting "struggling" American farmers; there is no incentive for politicians to back away from the policy of supporting an inefficient technology. The problem really is not with ethanol, but with basing our entire ethanol network on corn and then propping corn up with subsidies on the finished product (ethanol) and import tariffs. The effects, as we've rehashed several times on this board, extend beyond the fuels industry. Sadly, even as it continues to elevate food prices more and more, I doubt the public outcry will ever come. It is easier for people to just assume taxing oil companies more is the solution, when it only perpetuates the problem.

2) 13 years isn't that long of a time to make the kind of changes that will be required in the auto industry to hit 35 mpg. They could shorten the time required, but the result of that would not be more efficient engines, it would just mean the halt of production of the current less efficient ones while the current efficient ones are increased. I can understand someone making an argument for this case and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it. It's a valid approach in my eyes.

However, I would prefer the approach of giving them time to improve technology and raise the level of efficiency accross the board rather than just shift the mix of current technology available. We won't have a 70 mpg Tahoe in 13 years, but we may see a 25-30 mpg one that can be offset by a 45 mpg Toyota Camry (or whatever a Chevy version is).

The point is, trying to rush things isn't as effective in achieving a technological breakthrough. Eventually they will happen either way (after 10 years of the Corvette coming standard with a 35 mpg 1.8L 4cly engine, they'd have the incentive to produce and charge major bucks for a 35mpg V8) - but rushing it will take longer.

3) I think there are two issues of point in the CA case. The first is whether or not the CA proposal was a good one (I don't think it was, for the combustion physics already noted), but more importantly is whether the EPA should be stepping in to state's business.

States should most certainly be allowed to pursue their own programs and it is really a shame to see their initiatives shut down because they don't coincide with initiatives at the federal level. While I think the CA proposal in this instance was no good, I think they should have the right to make their own mistakes.