CLINTON CAMPAIGN SPUTTERS INTO CALIFORNIA TO TALK RENEWABLE ENERGY

(SACRAMENTO) - California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring issued the following statement in anticipation of Senator Hillary Clinton's address at the global climate change and energy issues forum in Los Angeles tomorrow:
 
"Hillary Clinton is rolling into Los Angeles to discuss her ‘renewed' interest in renewable energy. But the reality is Hillary Clinton has absolutely no record of accomplishment in this field, and continues to change her positions on the issue almost as frequently as she does on driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

"Hillary Clinton has a long record of opposing renewable energy, especially ethanol. In her brief term as a Senator, she has both voted for and against the same measure of increasing fuel-efficiently standards up to 25 miles per gallon and then 40 miles per gallon by 2015.

"With her declining support, it seems the ‘Clinton Spin' cycle might be running on empty."

***

Hillary's Record Shows Vigorous Opposition To Renewable Energy, Especially Against Ethanol:

"She Also Has Opposed Subsidies For Ethanol, A Politically Incorrect Position For Any Presidential Candidate Seeking Support In An Agricultural State Such As Iowa." (Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz, "In Race For Iowa, Clinton Has To Make Up Ground," The Washington Post, 1/27/07)

Hillary "Once Vigorously Opposed" Ethanol Production. "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is scheduled to return to Iowa today, in part to promote a campaign proposal encouraging ethanol production - a concept she once vigorously opposed in the U.S. Senate." (Thomas Beaumont, "Clinton To Back Ethanol In Iowa," The Des Moines Register, 3/4/07)

In 2002, Hillary Earned A Zero Rating From The American Coalition For Ethanol. "Upon closer inspection, it became clearer that her solo act on energy had a lot to do with pleasing crucial electoral states. Take the home of the first presidential caucus, for example. In the past, she consistently voted against ethanol measures, earning a zero rating in 2002 from the American Coalition for Ethanol..." (Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., Her Way, 2007, p. 283-284)

 Hillary Voted At Least 17 Times Against Ethanol. (S.517, CQ Vote #67: Adopted 61-36: R 27-20; D 33-16; I 1-0, 4/11/02, Clinton Voted Nay; S. 517, CQ Vote #78: Motion Agreed To 69-30: R 31-17; D 37-13; I 1-0, 4/23/02, Clinton Voted Nay; S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02, Clinton Voted Nay; S. 517, CQ Voted #88: Motion Agreed To 60-39: R 28-20; D 31-19; I 1-0, 4/25/02, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 4, CQ Vote #94, Passed 88-11: R: 45-3; D: 42-8; I: 1-0, 4/25/02, Clinton Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 35-60: R 19-31; D 16-28; I 0-1, 6/3/03, Clinton Voted Yea; S. 14, CQ Vote #204: Rejected 34-62: R 21-30; D 13-31; I 0-1, 6/3/05, Clinton Voted Yea; S.14, CQ Vote #206: Rejected 37-58: R 19-30; D 17-28; I 1-0, 6/4/03, Clinton Voted Yea; S.14, CQ Voted #207: Rejected 26-69: R 12-37; D 14-31; I 0-1 , 6/5/03, Clinton Voted Yea; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Clinton Voted Yea; S. 14, CQ Vote #209: Adopted 67-29: R 31-18; D 35-11; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #456: Motion Rejected 57-40: R 44-7; D 13-32; I 0-1, 11/21/03, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #137, Motion Agreed To 59-38: R 45-9; D 14-28; I 0-1, 6/14/05, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #138, Motion Agreed To 69-28: R 39-14; D 30-14; I 0-0, 6/15/05, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #139: Adopted 70-26: R 38-14; D 32-12; I 0-0; 6/15/05, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #317, Passed 84-14: R 48-3, D 35-11, I 1-0, 7/31/03, Clinton Voted Nay)

 And Hillary Has Had Some Choice Words About Ethanol:

 Hillary Called Ethanol "A Big Brother, Big-Hand Federal Government Mandate." Hillary: "And the use of a constant percentage of ethanol per volume of gasoline would be required every year thereafter no matter what kind of new breakthroughs we had in making gas both more efficient and cleaner. It would not matter. We would have a big brother, big-hand Federal Government mandate: You have to use it no matter what." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 4/11/02, p. S2570)

 Hillary Called Ethanol A Sweetheart Deal. Hillary: "What is the net result? We are providing a single industry with a guaranteed market for its products, subsidies on top of subsidies on top of subsidies and, on top of that, protection from liability. What a sweetheart deal." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 4/11/02, p. S2570)

 Hillary Said The Ethanol Mandate Is A "One, Two, Three, Four Punch" To Consumers. Hillary: "For consumers, the ethanol mandate is a one, two, three, four punch." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 4/11/02, p. S2570-S2571)

 The Media Has Noted Hillary's Renewed Interest As The 2008 Presidential Election Approaches:

 Hillary Experienced The "Closest Thing In Politics To A Religious Experience": The "Ethanol Conversion." "What's the closest thing in politics to a religious experience? The ethanol conversion. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) experienced one in May of last year. Long opposed to federal support for the corn-based biofuel, she reversed herself and endorsed even bigger ethanol incentives than she previously voted against." (Shailagh Murray, "Ethanol Undergoes Evolution As Political Issue," The Washington Post, 3/13/07)

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Who Once Opposed Federal Support For The Biofuel, Reversed Herself And Endorsed Bigger Ethanol Incentives Than She Previously Voted Against." (Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "It's A Good Time To Be The Hill's Mr. Ethanol," The Washington Post, 5/15/07)

 Investor's Business Daily: "Sen. Hillary Clinton supports the use of ethanol to help fuel our cars, but she is silent on the issue of eliminating tariffs on the imported variety. Does this have anything to do with the Iowa caucuses?" (Editorial, "Children Of The Corn," Investor's Business Daily, 5/25/06)

 The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "You want to talk about the environment all the time until we get to Hillary Clinton and her pandering about ethanol production." (ABC's "The View," 2/27/07)

 But Sen. Clinton Doesn't Seem To Know Where She Has Been Running On Fuel-Efficiency:

 With "The Presidency Increasingly On Her Mind", Hillary Actually Pushed The Idea Publicly "But Voted Against The Same Measure She Had Backed." "Further evidence of her political instincts was seen with regard to car pollution. In 2003, Hillary had voted for a fuel-efficiency standard opposed by the auto industry. But two years later, the presidency increasingly on her mind, she continued to push the idea publicly but voted against the same measure she had backed." (Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., Her Way, 2007, p. 284)

• In 2003, Hillary Voted In Favor Of Increasing Fuel-Efficiency Standards Up To 25 Miles Per Gallon And Then 40 Miles Per Gallon By 2015. "Durbin, D-Ill., amendment that would mandate an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard. Passenger vehicles made before 2006 would have to average 25 miles per gallon. After that, the standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2015. Non-passenger vehicles made before 2006 would have to average 17 miles per gallon. By model year 2015, they would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon." (S. 14, CQ Vote # 309, Rejected 32-65: R 4-47, D 27-18, I 1-0, 7/29/03, Clinton Voted Yea) 

• In 2005, Hillary Voted Against Increasing Fuel-Efficiency Standards Up To 25 Miles Per Gallon And Then 40 Miles Per Gallon By 2016. "Durbin, D-Ill., amendment no. 902 that would mandate phased increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Passenger vehicles made before 2008 would have to average 25 miles per gallon. The standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2016. Non-passenger vehicles made before 2008 would have to average 17 miles per gallon. By model year 2016, the standard would rise to an average of 27.5 miles per gallon." (H.R. 6, CQ Vote # 157, Rejected 28-67: R 5-48, D 22-19, I 1-0, Clinton Voted Nay)

When Asked If She Supported An Increase In Fuel-Efficiency Standards, Hillary "Side-Stepped The Question." "But when a reporter asked if she supported a congressional measure to require automakers to increase the fuel-efficiency standards of their vehicles, she side-stepped the question. Instead, she called for a bipartisan solution that would help the automobile companies 'manage this' challenge." (Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., Her Way, 2007, p. 283)

Back to News and Press