Hillary Clinton, Before Flint Crisis, Voted Against Measure To Prevent Groundwater Pollution

[Mufaddal]

When the Democratic presidential contenders meet on Sunday for their debate in Flint, Michigan — where thousands of residents have been poisoned by polluted water — the candidates’ records on clean water policy are likely to be in the spotlight. Hillary Clinton seems eager for that discussion, recently telling NPR: “The idea that you would have a community in the United States of America of nearly 100,000 people who were drinking and bathing in lead-contaminated water infuriates me.”

But despite that rhetoric, the issue of clean water may be politically perilous for the leading Democratic candidate, thanks to her vote against banning a possible carcinogen at the center of one of the largest water pollution scandals in recent history.

Facing reports that a controversial fuel additive was contaminating water supplies across America, Clinton as a senator in 2005 opposed a bipartisan measure to ban the chemical — even though Bill Clinton’s Environmental Protection Agency had first proposed such a prohibition. At roughly the same time, one major company producing the chemical also tried to use provisions in a trade deal backed by Hillary Clinton to force local governments in the United States to let it continue selling the toxic compound.

At issue was the chemical known as methyl tertiary butyl ether — or MTBE. Though the compound makes fuel burn cleaner, by the end of the 1990s, scientists began detecting an increasing amount of the potential carcinogen in groundwater supplies. In 2000, a federal study found that drinking water wells in up to 31 states were at risk of MTBE contamination, and by 2003, the compound had contaminated drinking water supplies for more than 15 million Americans, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Seventeen states ultimately joined together in lawsuits against the major producers of the compound, including ExxonMobil — which became a major Clinton Foundation donor.

Full article: http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-spotlighting-crisis-flint-michigan-voted-against-measure-prevent

[haikugal]

1. She's been promoting fracking all over the world. That is her concern not people.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. FRACK BABY, FRACK!

.


That sounds familiar...





.

[jillan]

2. #WhichHillary

[NWCorona]

4. Indeed!

[JudyM]

3. Ok, so an obvious question is why did she vote against banning that carcinogen?

[concreteblue]

5. K & R

Duh....#whichHillary

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. rec

[CalvinballPro]

7. There are reasons for Clinton's vote, kind of like "reasons" for Sanders Crime Bill vote

This article refers to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a major priority of the GWBush administration at the time. (This was already litigated in the 2008 primary, you know. Obama voted for it, Clinton didn't.)

Some facts about this bill:
-The bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.

-it seeks to increase coal as an energy source while also reducing air pollution, through authorizing $200 million annually for clean coal initiatives, repealing the current 160-acre (0.65 km2) cap on coal leases, allowing the advanced payment of royalties from coal mines and requiring an assessment of coal resources on federal lands that are not national parks

-it provides incentives to companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico

-it exempts oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act

-it directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete a programmatic environmental impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within each of the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

And here's Clinton's explanation for her vote. (Again, just like Sanders' explanation of his Crime Bill vote.)

"So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy," said Clinton. "That's why I voted against it. That's why I'm standing for the proposition — let's take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all of the rest that we need for a new energy future."

No more hypocrisy. Either all politicians can make hard votes, or none can. No more exceptions for Bernie Sanders please.

[Mufaddal]

9. That's a fair criticism

Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[oasis]

10. Thanks for the excellent points you've raised and welcome to DU.

[Tanuki]

11. Thank you for this information! Welcome to DU, and I hope you will make many more

contributions to the discussions!

[jsmirman]

12. Good information

makes you wonder why anyone on our side voted for it.

[CalvinballPro]

15. There were actually a few (very few) good reason to vote Yes on it, actually

In 2008, Obama was correct at the time when he stated that this bill was one of, if not the, largest investments in renewable energy in America's history. That explains his vote in favor.

It was also unfortunately a Trojan Horse for a lot of pro-oil and pro-coal interests. That was Clinton's reason for voting against.

Politics involves a lot of hard choices, and often ones that come back to bite you years later in your career.

Thank you everyone for the welcomes. Literally the first time I've started posting somewhere and was greeted politely by forum members. :-D

[jsmirman]

16. Very interesting

thanks

[Armstead]

17. She voted against the AMENDMENT seperatly

You are correct that sometimes legislators have to vote for or against bills because of certain provisions in it they eitehr support or object to.

However, this was a matter of not supporting the ban when the bill was being negotiated, as a specific mesaure.

And she was doing some Clintonian waffling.


From the above article

Amid the uproar, Washington lawmakers in 2005 proposed an amendment to national energy legislation that would have banned MTBE. By that time, 21 states had passed legislation banning the use of MTBE, including New York.

“When leaked or spilled into the environment, MTBE may cause serious problems of drinking water quality,” Sen. Pete Domenici’s legislation stated in its justification of the phaseout. “In recent years, MTBE has been detected in water sources throughout the United States.”

Breaking with then-Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton joined 14 Republicans and 11 Democrats in voting against the measure to phase out MTBE , which passed the Senate by a vote of 70-26. Critics of the amendment to ban MTBE, like New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, charged it would end up forcing states to use more ethanol.

When Clinton cast her vote against banning MTBE, she was in the midst of a re-election campaign in which she raised more than $74,000 from the oil and gas industry, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. But her record was not one of unanimous support for that industry.

One month after Clinton voted against the MTBE ban, the Environmental Working Group claimed an EPA draft report had found MTBE to be a “likely” carcinogen, linking it to cancers like leukemia and lymphoma.

A subsequent press release from Clinton’s senate office announced she and her colleagues were requesting additional information about the study. The release noted that MTBE had caused “serious damage to water quality nationwide,” and asserted that “Congress should act to discontinue the use of MTBE.” It also declared Clinton’s opposition to a proposal to give MTBE producers legal immunity from environmental and public health lawsuits.

Though the MTBE ban was not included in the final energy legislation, the new bill did include language discouraging the use of the chemical. Despite expressing concerns about MTBE, Clinton voted against the overall bill, which passed the Senate 74-26.

[passiveporcupine]

19. If she was against that bill,

why did she vote for it after the senate amended it to remove the ground water provision, and then against it after the conference committee added that provision back in?

Also, Politifact calls her out on this statement:

"So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy. That's why I voted against it."

— Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 in debate in Las Vegas

Politifact - FALSE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/16/hillary-clinton/no-it-was-a-boon-to-renewable-fuel-industry/

[bigwillq]

20. Hello

Welcome to DU!

[EndElectoral]

8. Hope Bernie brings this up cause doubtful the moderators will.

[Godhumor]

13. He voted against it, too

Will be really interesting if the moderators bring it up.

[EndElectoral]

18. They should bring it up.Pertinent issue for the community and for both candidates regardless of vote

Precious few moments in the debates about the environment

[passiveporcupine]

21. He consistently voted against it

It was Hillary who voted for it and then against it, based on the ground water provision.

The groundwater provision cited above appears in the conference version (which Clinton and Sanders opposed) and in the House version that Sanders opposed. It was not in the Senate version that Clinton voted for.

At least that is the gist of what I'm getting from this post in this other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1415920

So, she was OK with the bill without the ground water provision (protection from fuel tanks leaking MTBE, a carcinogen, into the groundwater).

I might have this all wrong, but I don't think so.