SCRIPT

FACTS

Narrator:

It's hard to figure.

At a time when we're paying three dollars a gallon for gas and the oil companies are making record profits, Jim Talent still supports an Energy Bill that gives those oil companies over $9 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks.

FACT: Talent Voted for Pork-Riddled Energy Bill that Included at least $9 Billion in Tax Breaks and Subsidies to Oil and Gas Industries. Energy bill gave new tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industries, which are already profitable and mature, unlike the renewable sector, which is still in infancy.

$2.6 billion: The bill would also allow oil companies to immediately write off costs associated with expanding the capacity of existing refineries and tax credits to allow companies to deduct 50% of the cost of certain equipment used at oil refineries to refine liquid fuels. [CNN, 7/28/05; New York Times, 3/27/06]

$7 Billion: The energy bill inserted at the last minute, thanks to Representative Joe Barton, an obscure provision on new drilling incentives that "included waiving royalty payments for drilling for gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska ." It also allowed oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil instead of cash. Months after the bill was passed, the Bush administration confirmed that a royalty provision in the final energy bill could mean another $7 billion in oil industry tax breaks over five years, a number that could potentially go as high as $28 billion. [New York Times, 3/27/06; Vote 213, 7/29/05]

Hard to figure...until you find out that Jim Talent accepted $239,000 in campaign dollars from oil companies -- that's right, more money from Exxon than any candidate for Senate in his last election.

FACT: Since First Running for Senate, Talent has hauled in $239,920 from the Oil and Gas Industries. In the most recent 2^nd Quarter for 2006, he received $20,000 alone. For the 2006 cycle, Talent ranks sixth among all Senators in oil and gas contributions. [Center for Responsive Politics]

FACT: Exxon Mobil's Favorite Candidate in 2002. Talent has received $16,150 from Exxon Mobil since first running for Senate. He was Exxon Mobil's top Senator to fund in 2002, receiving $11,150. [Center for Responsive Politics]

So it's not so hard to figure that Jim Talent sided with big oil and voted seven times against funding for ethanol and alternative fuels.

It's true.

Seven votes against ethanol and now a misleading campaign to cover it all up.

FACT: Longtime Ethanol Opponent Talent has Voted SEVEN Times Against Funding Ethanol Proposals in his 20-Year Career.

Talent Admitted Did not Care about Ethanol as a "St. Louis Representative." In July 2006, in order to explain Talent's bad ethanol votes, his senior campaign advisor said that Talent "represented a small, suburban St. Louis district in the 1980s and was more concerned with highways than ethanol back then." [KC Buzz Blog 7/14/06]

2006: Talent Opposed Funding Cellulosic Ethanol, Extending Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit and Clean Energy Bonds. In 2006, Talent voted against an amendment to a bill that would have funded cellulosic ethanol initiatives and extended the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for an additional four years. The amendment provided for the following funding: Biomass cellulosic fuels ($250 million), Cellulosic biomass ethanol conversion assistance ($250 million), Renewable energy R&D Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower ($290 million). The amendment failed 46-54. [Vote 42, 3/14/06; Senator Bingaman Floor Speech, 3/14/06]

2005: Talent Voted To Almost Eliminate Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program for Farmers that Helped Fund Ethanol Plants. In December 2005, Talent cast the deciding vote to almost entirely eliminate the popular and successful Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program for farmers, cutting it from its current $23 million to only $3 million. The Energy Efficiency program has doled out more than $66 million in grants for 400 clean energy projects in Rural America since 2003, including ethanol plants. These projects, valued at over one billion dollars, include bioenergy projects, wind power, and energy efficiency improvements. [Vote 363, 12/21/05; "Senate Passes Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005: Renewable Energy Programs Cut," Environmental and Energy Institute, 12/19/05]

MO Ethanol Plant Received Grant. There were three recipients in MO for the Energy grants, including Bootheel Ethanol, LLC who received $500,000. [Rural Development Agency, USDA]

2004: Talent Opposed Stand-Alone Renewable Fuel Mandate. In April 2004, Talent opposed a Daschle amendment to the Internet Tax bill that would have required that gasoline sold in or introduced into the United States contain renewable fuel in specific amounts, beginning with 3.1 billion gallons in 2005 and increasing each year to 5 billion gallons in 2012. Amendment failed to pass. [Vote 73, 4/29/04]

1996: Talent Voted to Cut Funding to Renewable Energy (including Cellulosic Ethanol) Programs. In 1996, Talent opposed an amendment to restore $42 million for renewable energy and research and development. The amendment passed 279-135. The amendment restored funding to develop wind and solar energy technology at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado and added $42 million to the overall budget for renewable energy. Bob Noun, a spokesman for the NREL, said without the extra funding, NREL would have had to shut down wind energy research and scale back on solar and biomass energy programs. [Vote 358, 7/25/96; Denver Post, 7/26/96]

1995: Talent Voted Against Funding for Solar Energy Technology, Biomass and Other Renewable Energy Technology. In 1995, Talent voted against an amendment to earmark $45 million to implement the Innovative Renewable Energy Technology Transfer Program, which encouraged the export and commercialization of U.S. technologies in renewable energy, including for biomass technology to produce ethanol. Republicans were attempting to slash the renewable energy budget by 43% from 1995. The amendment was sponsored by Republican Representative Scott Klug (R-WI) and passed the House. Passed 214-208. [Vote 488, 7/12/95; Department of the Navy Energy Program; League of Conservation Voters, 1995 National Environmental Scorecard]

1990: Vetoed Funding Ethanol Production Fund. As the House Minority Leader, Talent led his party's efforts in 1990 to support Governor John Ashcroft's veto of $125,000 to the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producers Incentive Fund established in 1988. Ashcroft vetoed the funding because "it is unlikely that funds will be needed in Fiscal Year 1991 for this new program." [Veto Vote on HB 1007, 1990 House Journal, p. 34]

1988: One of Only 21 to Oppose Creating Ethanol Production Fund and Reducing Gas Tax. Talent was one of only 21 representatives to vote against creation of the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producers Incentive Fund. Missouri fuel ethanol producers would receive monthly grants equal to 20 cents per gallon of fuel ethanol produced. The bill also included a two-cent per gallon tax break on ethanol-blended gasoline. The Ethanol bill was signed into law. [SB 600, 1988 House Journal, p. 1673]

We always know where Claire McCaskill stands...

Claire has NEVER voted against ethanol AND will never put the big oil companies before you.

CMC: I'm Claire McCaskill, candidate for US Senate, and I approve this message.

FACT: McCaskill Supported Funding Ethanol as State Representative While Talent Opposed.

1990: Supported Funding Ethanol Production Fund as Democrats Urged U.S. Lessen Dependence on Foreign Oil. McCaskill voted to override Governor John Ashcroft's veto of $125,000 to the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producers Incentive Fund established in 1988. Ashcroft vetoed the funding because "it is unlikely that funds will be needed in Fiscal Year 1991 for this new program." Democratic Lt. Gov. Mel Carnahan countered saying Missouri should encourage ethanol production and that it "would help the United States lessen its dependence on Middle East oil." Carnahan said more ethanol usage would "take money, and thus power, away from oil barons and the despotic Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and put it in the pockets of the Missouri corn farmers." [Veto Vote On HB 1007, 1990 House Journal, p. 34; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/9/1990; The Kansas City Star, 9/11/1990]

1988: Voted to Create Ethanol Production Fund and Reducing Gas Tax. McCaskill voted to create the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producers Incentive Fund. Missouri fuel ethanol producers would receive monthly grants equal to 20 cents per gallon of fuel ethanol produced. The bill also included a two-cent per gallon tax break on ethanol-blended gasoline. The Ethanol bill was signed into law. [SB 600, 1988 House Journal, p. 1673]