Michael,
The complete text of the smart guy vs. the 1996 version of the dull-minded Republican moron.
1) Do you support abolition of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)?
Clinton: No. The President has already ordered substantial reductions in the size of the Department to make it more efficient. By 2000, the Administration's plan will have saved taxpayers more than $10 billion. Essential functions of the Department -- such as research and development, efficiency programs and critical defense programs -- should be preserved. Republican proposals to dismantle the Department would either save money by shirking essential missions or simply transfer functions to other departments without saving taxpayers anything.
Dole: Yes. Bob Dole supports abolition of the U.S. Department of Energy because of the need to downsize the Federal government and because the Department of Energy serves little purpose in obtaining energy or environmental benefits in the public interest. The Department of Energy is one of four cabinet agencies which together spend more than $74 billion per year and whose elimination Bob Dole has called for in his initiative to streamline the entire Federal bureaucracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Do you support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling?
Clinton: No. The Arctic Refuge is a rare, pristine wilderness that should be preserved for future generations. There are substantial state and federal lands that can be developed in Alaska without disturbing the Refuge. And since there is more oil in energy efficiency than can be extracted from the Arctic Refuge, drilling is as unnecessary as it is unwise.
Dole: Yes. Bob Dole supports allowing oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain -- a small portion -- of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it can be done safely and responsibly without damage to the environment, and because careful development of America's oil and natural gas resources contributes to economic growth, creates American jobs, enhances our nation's energy security and reduces dependence on foreign oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Do you favor raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for new cars to 45 mpg and for new light trucks to 35 mpg by the year 2005?
Clinton: No. The Administration strongly supports improving fuel efficiency, and believes CAFE has been a useful tool to increase fuel economy in the past. However, the fast-paced increase suggested by the question runs a strong risk of not being cost-effective and of being counterproductive. In September 1993, the President initiated a new partnership with the domestic auto industry and labor to develop a new generation of high-performance, affordable vehicles up to three times more fuel efficient than today's models. Early developments are promising.
Dole: No. Bob Dole supports saving energy in the transportation sector, but he believes that additional Federal regulatory mandates such as raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") standards are not the best way to obtain more energy efficient cars and trucks. Bob Dole advocates greater use of alternative fuels like ethanol to reduce emissions and increase energy security. Bob Dole also advocates taking a harder look at market-based mechanisms to get the really inefficient and polluting cars off the road.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Do you support the construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S.?
Clinton: New nuclear power plants are not being built today for two economic reasons: first, they are extremely expensive -- more costly than both conservation measures and other sources of electricity generation; and second, nationwide conservation and utility deregulation have reduced the demand for huge new plants. The Administration supports research and development funding to help develop more cost-effective nuclear plant designs. Ultimately, however, the market and the public must choose the technology and fuels for future electricity generation -- not the government.
Dole: Bob Dole supports a diversified energy supply system. If nuclear power is selected as the economic choice, and otherwise meets all health and safety licensing requirements, Bob Dole supports the right of companies to choose nuclear power technology. However, one of the most pressing problems facing the nuclear energy industry is the disposal of nuclear waste. This problem has not been adequately addressed by the Clinton Administration and needs to be resolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Do you support cuts of 25 percent in the DOE energy efficiency and renewable energy programs? [Note, Congress approved cuts of nearly 30 percent in these programs for the Fiscal Year 1996 budget.]
Clinton: No. These programs save consumers money, create jobs, help new technologies gain market share in the U.S. and abroad, and reduce the gases that cause global climate change and other air pollution. That's why the President has expanded funding for these programs -- more than 40 percent for conservation and renewables (measured from the last Bush budget to the 1996 Clinton request). Many of these programs engage the private sector in voluntary energy-saving efforts that help improve productivity -- and generate significant economic and environmental benefits for each taxpayer dollar invested.
Dole: Yes. DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, like many other worthy programs in the Federal government, must bear their share of the budget restraint necessary to obtain a balanced budget. Federal funding for energy conservation programs and for renewable energy programs increased 27.5% and 42% respectively, from FY'1993 to FY'1995. These substantial increases came on top of a doubling of energy conservation research and development funding and a 65% increase in renewable energy funding during the Bush Administration. The Congress has approved approximately $800 million in FY'1996 funding for DOE's energy conservation and renewable energy programs. This seems adequate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Do you support the proposed cuts in funding (40%) for HHS' Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program? [This is roughly the level of cuts made by Congress in these programs in the Fiscal Year 1996 budget.]
Clinton: No. In the past two years, we have witnessed severe weather -- the brutal winter of 1993-94 in the East, the hot summer of 1995 in the Midwest, and the blizzard of 1996 which we are now facing -- where many poor and elderly citizens face life-threatening situations. LIHEAP helps these citizens pay their bills and offers them an important lifeline. Weatherization continues to be a very cost-effective way to help poor families, who spend about three times the proportion of their family budgets on fuel and utility bills than average.
Dole: Again, Bob Dole supports HHS' Low Income Home Energy Assistance program and DOE's weatherization assistance program and understands the importance of these programs to the State of New Hampshire. The issues are: (1) how much should be spent on these programs given other competing priorities; (2) the need to balance the budget; and (3) who should bear financial responsibility for these programs, the Federal government or the states. In general, he believes the states should have more say about how to use Federal resources to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Whether states choose to use those resources for low income energy assistance or weatherization should be a judgment for states to make, not the Federal government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Do you support the phase-out of new appliance efficiency and building energy code standards?
Clinton: No. These standards have saved consumers billions of dollars in the past 10 years. Moreover, new appliance standards are set by consulting with manufacturers to ensure that standards are cost-effective and in the best interests of both consumers and appliance producers. Building energy codes remain the cheapest, most efficient way to increase energy efficiency in homes and offices, and federal guidance is necessary because state and local programs don't always have the resources to develop their own codes.
Dole: Bob Dole supports providing consumers with the information they need to choose the level of efficiency they want to pay for. He does not support Federal mandates or regulations that deny consumers choice and affordable appliances or cost American jobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) Do you support cutting U.S. so-called greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000?
Clinton: Yes. On Earth Day 1993, shortly after taking office, President Clinton made a commitment to cut emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000 -- a commitment previous Presidents refused to make.
Dole: Bob Dole supports the commitment made by President Bush to prepare a plan with the objective of returning U.S. greenhouse gas levels in the year 2000 to 1990 levels through voluntary measures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) Do you support establishment of an interim storage high-level nuclear waste site in Nevada?
Clinton: No. The Administration opposes building anywhere a temporary storage facility for high-level waste until scientific investigation on a permanent disposal site is farther along. The Administration believes that we should focus on funding and completing the scientific examination of the permanent underground disposal repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. We should make the decision about where and when to build an interim site after we know more about Yucca Mountain's suitability as a permanent repository.
Dole: Bob Dole supports the siting of an interim storage facility for high-level nuclear waste. He believes that determinations regarding the siting of that facility should be left to the legislative process, through the authorizing committees of the Congress working with those deeply involved in the high-level nuclear waste program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10) Do you support transfer of federal land for the proposed Ward Valley, California low-level nuclear waste facility?
Clinton: Yes, if the proper health and safety standards are in place. Unfortunately, the state of California (to whom the site would be transferred) and Republicans in Congress believe the site should be transferred without any binding commitments for public safeguards. The President opposes that measure, and vetoed it with the rest of the GOP budget (the reconciliation bill).
Dole: Yes. Ward Valley is the site selected by state officials charged with the responsibility of siting a low-level nuclear waste facility. Independent scientific assessments have demonstrated no reason why Ward Valley is not a suitable site for such a facility. Bob Dole believes, therefore, that the Federal government should accommodate the choice that the states have made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) Do you support the proposed cuts (about 35%) in the EPA budget? [This is roughly the level of cuts initially approved by Congress in the Fiscal Year 1996 budget but subsequently restored in part following a presidential veto.]
Clinton: No. The President is strongly opposed to cuts of this magnitude, which would put public health and safety at risk. He vetoed the Republican EPA appropriations bill in large part because it would have cut EPA's funding 22 percent from the President's request. (The vetoed bill had been improved slightly in the House/Senate conference from the 35% cut cited in the question, which was the House level.)
Dole: For fiscal year 1996, EPA will not receive a 35% cut in funding. Although Bob Dole supports the current funding level for EPA, EPA must also bear its share of the burden of achieving a balanced budget. EPA has almost doubled in size in the past 20 years to over 19,000 employees (not counting contract employees), and its budget has grown from $1.6 billion to $3.6 billion (in constant dollars), not counting construction spending, during the same period. More EPA staff does not automatically mean a better environment. It does mean fewer resources to devote to other needs (e.g., health, nutrition, housing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12) Do you support repeal of the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act?
Clinton: No. PUHCA was enacted to limit anti-competitive behavior by utility monopolies, and still serves as an important safeguard for consumers. Significant changes have been enacted to PUHCA and related laws in recent years, and we should carefully examine the effect of those reforms before we make further changes. However, as the electric utility industry becomes more competitive, the Administration will assess the prospects for undertaking statutory reforms of PUHCA in view of national objectives of reliable, clean, and economic electricity generation.
Dole: Yes. The 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act is an outdated statute that no longer provides benefits to consumers or investors and should be repealed. The Securities and Exchange Commission under both Republican and Democratic Administrations in 1981 and again in 1985 has recommended repeal of this statute. Bob Dole has co-sponsored legislation that would repeal this out-moded statute with appropriate safeguards for consumers.
ecomall.com
Scumbria |
