Organizing for America

Sign-Up

Response to Hillary Clinton's Attack Today

February 14, 2008

RHETORIC: "My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests. Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill -- the bill never actually passed.

REALITY: Clinton Touted Her Role In The Exact Legislation She is Attacking Obama For

Clinton Cosponsored, Supported Obama’s Bill on Reporting Requirements For Nuclear Plants. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama’s Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. She praised the bill’s passage in a press release that day, saying "This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; Clinton Press Release, 9/13/06]

REALITY: Clinton Voted To Keep Nuclear Loan Guarantees In Energy Bill, Benefiting One Of Her Big Campaign Boosters

2005: Clinton Voted Against An Effort To Strip Loan Guarantees For Nuclear Power Plants From The 2005 Energy Bill; Bill Provided A System Of Loan Guarantees For The Next Generation Of Nuclear Power Reactors. In 2005, Clinton and Obama voted against an effort to strike a provision that provided incentives in the form of loan guarantees for the development of innovative technology such as those used in nuclear power plants. Sununu, the amendment's sponsor, said, "We are subsidizing, providing loan guarantees for privately owned and operated and profitable power plants, whether coal or nuclear or renewable energy. It is not sound economic policy. Our amendment simply strikes this portion of the bill." In 2005, the AP reported, "The legislation would provide $18 billion in energy tax incentives, much of them aimed at getting people to use less energy or promoting renewable sources such as wind and solar power. It also calls for doubling the use of corn-based ethanol, a boon to farmers, and provides a system of loan guarantees to help introduce new clean coal technology and the next generation of nuclear power reactors." [HR 6, Vote 155, 6/23/05, Failed 21-76, D:12-31, R:9-44, I:0-1; AP, 6/23/05]

REALITY: Clinton Has Taken Thousands From Nuclear Power Plant Operator NRG Energy, The First Company To File A New Application For A Nuclear Power Plan Since The Three Mile Island Accident And NRG's CEO Is A Clinton Bundler

Clinton Has Accepted Thousands In Contributions From NRG Energy Inc., Which Is The First Company To File An Application For A New Nuclear Power Plant In The United States Since The Three Mile Island Accident; Clinton's Position On Nuclear Power Has Confounded Critics Who See A Contradiction In Her Opposition To Yucca But Not To Expansion In Nuclear Power. "At a South Carolina town hall in February, Clinton expressed concerns about waste disposal but noted that 'nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution.' Clinton has accepted thousands in contributions from the nuclear industry, including nearly $80,000 in this election from employees and a PAC of NRG Energy Inc., the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident. Critics see a contradiction in Clinton's opposition to a facility to store nuclear waste, but not to expansion of nuclear power, which would generate more waste." [AP, 11/13/07]

David Crane, The President And CEO Of NRG Energy, A Nuclear Power Company, Is a Maxed-Out Contributor And Bundler For Clinton's Campaign. David Crane, a "Hillraiser" for the Clinton campaign, is the president and CEO of NRG Energy Inc. Crane donated $4,600 on March 31, 2007 to Clinton's campaign. NRG Energy Inc. is the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident. [Center for Responsive Politics; AP, 11/13/07; White House For Sale]

REALITY: NRG Committed Millions Of Dollars To The Clinton Global Initiative

NRG Committed $5M To The Clinton Global Initiative In The First Year And $175M Total To Form The NRG Energy Carbon Capture And Sequestration 2007 Initiative. NRG has committed $5 million in the first year and a total of $175 million to the Clinton Global Initiative to form the NRG Energy Carbon Capture and Sequestration 2007 initiative. [Clinton Global Initiative]

REALITY: Obama Bill Required Immediate Disclosure From Nuclear Industry

National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

REALITY: Nuclear Industry Did Not Support Obama Bill -- Believed Congressional Action Was Unnecessary

CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]

NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]

NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]

RHETORIC: "On top of that, the same company that watered down that bill lobbied for Dick Cheney's energy bill. And my opponent voted for the energy bill, with its billions of dollars of breaks for the oil industry. I voted against it."

Fact Check: "We've Called Clinton On This Once Before... The Highly Publicized Energy Bill The President Signed In 2005 Raised Taxes Slightly On The Oil Industry As A Whole." Fact Check: "We've called Clinton on this once before. It's true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes." Actually, the highly publicized energy bill the president signed in 2005 raised taxes slightly on the oil industry as a whole, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service [FactCheck.org, 1/6/08; FactCheck.org, 7/25/07]

Obama Worked Consistently to Improve Energy Bill, Which Took Important Step Towards Energy Independence. When Obama first voted for the bill, he said that he voted for the bill reluctantly and that he was disappointed with the missed opportunity to do something bolder to move the country towards energy independence by recognizing the importance of a fuel alternative. Obama played a leadership role in promoting seven amendments that strengthened the 2005 bill when it was on the floor and did not stop fighting to strengthen the bill after it was passed, introducing legislation in 2007 to end some of the most egregious tax breaks for the oil industry that were part of the 2005 bill. [HR 6, Vote 139, 6/15/06; SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; HR 6, Vote 141, 6/16/05; HR 6, Vote 145, 6/21/05; SA 919 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; 110th, S. 115, Referred to Finance, 1/4/07; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 767, Passed Commerce Committee, 5/8/07]

2005-2007: Obama Introduced Legislation Repealing Tax Breaks And Other Perks For the Oil Industry, Requiring Yearly Increases In CAFE Standards, And Requiring Significant Increases In Renewable Fuel Mandates And Alternative Energy Incentives. Since 2005, Obama has introduced legislation suspending the 2005 energy bill's tax incentives and other perks for the oil industry in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requiring significant increases in the renewable fuel mandates over the next few years, requiring yearly increases in CAFÉ standards, and providing incentives for E-85 fuel pump installation, alternative vehicle research and production. [S. 115, 110th Congress; S. 23, 110th Congress; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 2202, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 10/18/2007 S. 2984, 109th Congress; S. 1324, Introduced 5/7/07; Press Release, 5/7/07]

RHETORIC: "My opponent says he'll stand up for workers. He often talks about the plight of Maytag workers in his home state. But the union at that plant supports me because when 1,600 jobs were being lost, they say he didn't do a thing to help."

REALITY: Obama And Durbin Demanded Immediate Assistance For Displaced Maytag Workers, Department Of Labor Met Their Demands

Obama And Durbin Wrote To Secretary Of Labor Requesting Rapid Response Program Assistance For Displaced Maytag Workers. "We are writing regarding the decision of Whirlpool, Inc. to close Maytag washer and dryer plants in Illinois and Arkansas. These plant closings will have a significant impact on thousands of our constituents, and we request the immediate assistance of the Department of Labor (DOL) in helping displaced Maytag workers get back on their feet...We understand that state officials and community leaders are attempting to stop or mitigate these plant closings. However, we want to make sure that if the closings go forward, the 1,700 individuals in Illinois and Arkansas who will lose their jobs will have immediate access to the full range of DOL programs and services. Specifically, we request that the Department immediately mobilize resources through the DOL Rapid Response program to begin working with state and local workforce development agencies and local One-Stop Career Centers to help Maytag employees transition into new jobs. These workers will require: career counseling and job search assistance; information about unemployment insurance; opportunities for education and training; and information about their health benefits and pensions options. We understand that Rapid Response specialists have a unique ability to provide this training, and we request that these specialists be mobilized immediately to help displaced Maytag workers...Finally, we expect that many of our dislocated constituents will apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance. Competition from foreign imports may have played a central role in the loss of these 1,700 jobs. We hope the Department will consider certifying these displaced workers as eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which will help them return to suitable employment as quickly as possible...We appreciate your timely consideration of these requests." [Obama/Durbin Letter to Chao, 5/17/06]

Obama Wrote That He Appreciated TAA Funding For Displaced Maytag Workers In Illinois. "We appreciate the Department's approval of TAA funding for workers displaced by the Maytag plant closing in Herrin, Illinois, among other assistance provided to former Maytag workers; we hope that our constituents in Godfrey will be given similar consideration." [Press Release, 9/5/06]

Obama Announced That DOL Would Assist Displaced Maytag Workers In Illinois. Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) today announced that the United States Department of Labor (DOL) will provide displaced workers with job placement and training assistance if the Maytag plant in Herrin, Illinois closes. "Obviously, my hope is that the Maytag plant remains open, but I'm happy that the Department of Labor is prepared to do everything it can to help these workers land on their feet," said Obama. "The Maytag plant has long been the backbone of Herrin's economy, and if it closes we must all do our part to keep this community intact." [Press Release, 6/23/06]

RHETORIC: "My opponent says to cut health care costs more aggressively than I do. But as an independent analysis from The Commonwealth Fund shows, the most effective way to lower costs is to truly cover everyone. His health care plan doesn't. Mine does."

REALITY: Independent Experts Agree Obama's Plan Lowers Costs More Than Clinton's Does

Newsweek: Clinton's Plan "Would Do Nearly As Well" As Obama's In Per Family Savings, But Not Quite. Newsweek reported, "For instance, the mailer says Obama's plan will save the average family $2,500 per year. That estimate comes from several Harvard professors who examined the plan at the Obama campaign's request. But Clinton says the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, estimates her plan would do nearly as well, saving about $2,200 per year per family." [Newsweek, 2/4/08]

Reich: Obama's Health Care Plan Would Cover "More People" Than Hillary's. "I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old…In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people." [Robert Reich, 12/3/07]

Obama Health Care Plan Saves $2500 For the Typical Family. A memo from David Blumenthal, David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman analyzing Obama's health care plan, wrote, "Combining all of these effects – from improved health IT, better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care -- under our 'best-guess' assumptions, we estimate that businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums. The typical family will save $2500 per year." [Health Care Expert Cost Memo, 5/29/07]

RHETORIC: "I was, however, glad to see that yesterday, my opponent adopted the goal of five million green collar jobs -- months after I announced I would create five million green collar jobs."

REALITY: Obama Advocated for Green Collar Jobs for Years--And Unveiled His Plan a Month Before Clinton Unveiled Hers

OCT 2007, MONTH BEFORE HILLARY'S PLAN: Obama's Said In His Energy Plan That Investing In Energy Would Create Millions Of New Jobs In The US. Obama said, "In meeting the challenges of earlier generations, we didn't just end a costly war or beat the Soviets to the moon - we also unleashed opportunities we had never dreamed of. The GI Bill sent an entire generation of Americans - including my grandfather - to college and then on to the middle-class. Legions of scientists and engineers emerged from our race to space whose discoveries and innovations have forever changed the world. That's why my plan isn't just about making dirty energy expensive, it's about making clean energy affordable - a project that will create millions of new jobs and entire new industries right here in America." [Speech, 10/8/07]

Apollo Alliance Co-Founder Bracken Hendricks Praised Obama's Energy Plan For Funding Programs To Train "Our Youth In The 'Green Collar Jobs' Of The Future. Hendricks, Co-founder of the Apollo Alliance and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress said, "Barack Obama's plan to combat global warming and achieve energy security shows that investing in clean energy will drive good jobs and economic growth. This proposal reduces carbon emissions and boldly invests in clean energy alternatives and efficiency. From helping farmers locally produce bio-fuels, to training our youth in the 'green collar jobs' of the future; from helping US manufacturers retool to build more efficient cars, to creating a venture fund for emerging clean technology, this plan demonstrates that solving global warming is at the center of renewing America's economy." [Obama Release, 10/8/07]

SEP 2006: Obama Addressed Creating Green Collar Jobs In A Speech On Energy Independence. Obama said, "During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers. If we hope to strengthen our security and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence." [Speech, 9/20/06]

APR 2006: Obama Addressed Green Collar Jobs In A Speech On Fuel Efficiency Standards. Obama said, "But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year. There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future - if they hope to survive - they must start building more of these cars. This isn't just about energy - this is about the ability to create millions of new jobs and save an entire American industry." [Speech, 4/3/06]

Obama Called for Green Jobs in Audacity of Hope...Published in 2006. "What we can do is create renewable, cleaner energy sources for the twenty-first century. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1 percent of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and the necessary infrastructure. Not only would such a project pay huge economic, foreign policy, and environmental dividends—it could be the vehicle by which we train an entire new generation of American scientists and engineers and a source of new export industries and high-wage jobs...Aggressively investing in alternative fuel sources can also lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant in Galesburg could reopen its doors as a cellulosic ethanol refinery. Down the street, scientists might be busy in a research lab working on a new hydrogen cell. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out hybrid cars. The new jobs created could be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education, from elementary school to college." [Audacity of Hope, p. 169-170]

RHETORIC: "I was also glad to see that he modeled his $60 billion infrastructure bank on a bill I co- sponsored last summer to create a $60 billion infrastructure bank."

REALITY: Infrastructure Bank Proposals Have Been Around For A While--But Clinton Wasn't Always a Fan

2005 Democratic Senate Bill Included Infrastructure Banks, With 13 Cosponsors, But Clinton Wasn't One of Them. In 2005, Sen. Sarbanes sponsored, along with 13 other Democratic cosponsors, "A bill to provide for alternative transportation in certain federally owned or managed areas that are open to the general public." Part of the bill read, "A qualified project assisted under this section shall be eligible for funding through a State Infrastructure Bank or other innovative financing mechanism otherwise available to finance an eligible project under this chapter." Sen. Clinton was not a cosponsor of the bill. [S. 890, Introduced 4/22/05]

Clinton Also Did Not Sign Onto the 2003 Bill. Sen. Sarbanes also introduced "A bill to provide for alternative transportation in certain federally owned or managed areas that are open to the general public" in 2003. There were 18 cosponsors, all Democrats, including Schumer, Dodd and Corzine, but Sen. Clinton was not one of them. [S. 1032, Introduced 5/8/03]