Home

Blog

How People Voted

47% For, 53% Against

Take Action

Alert Your Friends and Colleagues
Write Your Representative in Congress
Save & Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Yahoo!

P.L. 110-140, The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

Revision History Revisions Feed for This Bill

Below is the revision history of this article.

(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)

(Latest | Earliest)

To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).


Cost per :

Learn More

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

neil

January 23, 2007, 7:59am (report abuse)

You wrote:

> It would amend the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 to repeal provisions governing oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

The statement neglects to mention whether the change promotes or protects.

Webmaster

January 23, 2007, 8:39am (report abuse)

Thank you for your comment, Neil. The information in our summary is from the summary provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is itself unclear on this point. We are working on ways to make more, better information about the meanings of bills available. Sorry for the lack of clarity on your question at this point.

Neil

January 23, 2007, 8:47am (report abuse)

Hi Webmaster.
I'm not good at legalspeak. I'm glad to hear I wasn't having a reading-comprehension problem. :)
Thanks.

Neil

January 23, 2007, 9:26am (report abuse)

Well, my Hon. Rep. Kajorski voted For the bill. So I sent him an email asking for a translation of the Alaskan issue. If he replies, I'll let you know.
Thanks.

Charles

January 29, 2007, 8:41am (report abuse)

This bill seems to be a good first step, but I worry about the possible mis-appropriation of funds. There is nothing outlining where the $$ is to be spent and by whom.

Neil

January 31, 2007, 10:04am (report abuse)

Well, that was all January 23rd.

Today is Jan 31, and no reply from my representitive.

Either he doesn't know, or he doesn't care.

:|
-Neil-

Ken

May 19, 2007, 9:05pm (report abuse)

They don't care anymore. They care about staying in office, and corporate campaign contributions get/keep them in office.

Votes aren't counted anymore, only dollars. Peace.

DAVEA0511

May 20, 2007, 6:15pm (report abuse)

Charles -

You hit the nail on the head, and that's always been the #1 problem with "clean energy" government programs. No effort is made to intelligently and honestly determine the most viable clean energy solutions for fund appropriation. As a result almost all of it goes to waste on eternally unviable solutions or solutions that merely shift the polution from one industry to another (example: hydrogen generation).

McAdams

December 10, 2007, 11:34am (report abuse)

The voters should insist upon the "Honesty and Clarity in Naming Bills Act."
Not that many years ago, a CLEAN Energy Act would have all petro forms. Now, it just means decimating the nation's last remaining rain forest.

McAdams

December 10, 2007, 11:36am (report abuse)

"precluded" all petro forms, that is....

TIE

July 20, 2008, 5:49pm (report abuse)

good point DAVE0511. When a problem has been identified the (possible)Solutions are what is needed.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)