You Don’t Know Udall

SCRIPT: “You might think you might know where Mark Udall stands, but you don’t know Udall. Udall voted for higher taxes at least 50 times. Udall is fighting for the biggest tax increase in history. Udall stood with extremist groups. And voted to block bipartisan energy reforms that could lower gas prices. If you think you know where Mark Udall stands, then you don’t know Udall. Call Mark Udall, tell him to stop raising taxes and start standing for Colorado. Coloradans for Economic Growth is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

SCRIPT: “Udall voted for higher taxes at least 50 times”

UDALL IN FAVOR OF HIGHER TAXES

Udall Has Voted At Least 50 Times In Favor Of Higher Taxes:

(H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #330: Adopted 219-208: R 219-2; D 0-205; I 0-1, 7/21/99, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #332: Motion rejected 211-220: R 1-220; D 209-0; I 1-0, 7/22/99, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #333: Passed 223-208: R 217-4; D 6-203; I 0-1, 7/22/99, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #356: Motion rejected 205-213: R 0-212; D 204-1; I 1-0, 8/2/99, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #377: Adopted 224-203: R 220-0; D 4-202; I 0-1, 8/5/99, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #378: Motion rejected 205-221: R 0-218; D 204-3; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #379: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 221-206: R 216-4; D 5-201; I 0-1, 8/5/99, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 83, CQ Vote #37: Motion agreed to 220-204: R 215-0; D 4-203; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 83, CQ Vote #38: Motion agreed to 217-205: R 214-0; D 2-204; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 83, CQ Vote #39: Adopted 220-204: R 216-0; D 3-203; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 83, CQ Vote #40: Motion agreed to 221-197: R 215-0; D 5-196; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #42: Rejected 155-273: R 0-219; D 154-53; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #43: Motion agreed to 228-197: R 216-0; D 11-196; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #44: Motion rejected 204-221: R 0-218; D 203-2; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #45: Passed 230-198: R 219-0; D 10-197; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #116: Adopted 220-207: R 217-0; D 2-206; I 1-1, 5/16/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #117: Rejected 188-239: R 0-218; D 187-20; I 1-1, 5/16/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #118: Passed 230-197: R 216-0; D 13-196; I 1-1, 5/16/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #146: Motion rejected 198-210: R 1-205; D 196-4; I 1-1, 5/23/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #148: Adopted 213-177: R 209-0; D 3-176; I 1-1, 5/26/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 240-154: R 211-0; D 28-153; I 1-1, 5/26/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 270, CQ Vote #400: Motion agreed to 219-207: R 216-0; D 2-206; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 270, CQ Vote #401: Adopted 225-199: R 214-0; D 10-198; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 3090, CQ Vote #402: Rejected 166-261: R 0-217; D 165-43; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 3090, CQ Vote #403: Motion rejected 199-230: R 0-218; D 198-11; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 3090, CQ Vote #404: Passed 216-214: R 212-7; D 3-206; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 319, CQ Vote #506: Adopted 214-206: R 210-7; D 3-198; I 1-1, 12/19/01, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 320, CQ Vote #507: Adopted 219-198: R 215-0; D 3-197; I 1-1, 12/20/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 3529, CQ Vote #508: Motion rejected 177-238: R 0-215; D 176-22; I 1-1, 12/20/01, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 3529, CQ Vote #509: Passed 224-193: R 214-2; D 9-190; I 1-1, 12/20/01, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 622, CQ Vote #36: Motion agreed to 216-207: R 215-0; D 0-206; I 1-1, 2/14/02, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 622, CQ Vote #37: Adopted 213-206: R 212-0; D 0-205; I 1-1, 2/14/02, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 622, CQ Vote #38: Motion agreed to 225-199: R 214-1; D 10-197; I 1-1, 2/14/02, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 390, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 219-206: R 218-0; D 0-205; I 1-1, 4/18/02, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 586, CQ Vote #102: Adopted 218-205: R 217-0; D 0-204; I 1-1, 4/18/02, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 586, CQ Vote #103: Motion agreed to 229-198: R 219-1; D 9-196; I 1-1, 4/18/02, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #178: Motion agreed to 219-203: R 219-0; D 0-202; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Adopted 220-203: R 220-0; D 0-202; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #180: Motion agreed to 222-202: R 222-0; D 0-201; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #181: Motion rejected 202-218: R 0-217; D 201-1; I 1-0, 5/9/03, Udall voted Yea; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #182: Passed 222-203: R 218-3; D 4-199; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #211: Motion agreed to 221-202: R 220-0; D 1-201; I 0-1, 5/22/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #212: Adopted 218-202: R 218-0; D 0-201; I 0-1, 5/22/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #224: Motion agreed to 221-205: R 221-0; D 0-204; I 0-1, 5/23/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #225: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 231-200: R 224-1; D 7-198; I 0-1, 5/23/03, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #305: Motion agreed to 222-200: R 221-0; D 1-199; I 0-1, 6/24/03, Udall voted Nay; H. Res. 637, CQ Vote #156: Motion agreed to 221-203: R 221-2; D 0-200; I 0-1, 5/12/04, Udall voted Nay; H.R. 4275, CQ Vote #169: Rejected 190-227: R 1-216; D 188-11; I 1-0, 5/13/04, Udall voted Yea; H. Res. 685, CQ Vote #301: Rejected 184-230: R 2-217; D 181-13; I 1-0, 6/24/04, Udall voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 180-242: R 3-218; D 176-24; I 1-0, 3/17/05, Udall voted Yea)

SCRIPT: “Udall is fighting for the biggest tax increase in history.”

LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY IF TAX CUTS NOT MADE PERMANENT

“President Bush On Monday Called On Lawmakers To Make His 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts Permanent Or Risk What The White House Has Tagged ‘The Largest Tax Increase In History.’” (Jeanne Sahadi, “Bush: 43M Families Hurt If Tax Cuts Expire,” CNNMoney.com, 6/2/08)

A “Multitrillion Dollar Tax Increase.” “The election-year votes on legislation (HR 2734) to make the tax cuts permanent are designed to put Democrats on the spot heading into the Nov. 4 vote since the sweeping tax cuts pushed by President Bush will expire in 2011. Republicans say that will lead to the largest, multitrillion-dollar tax increase in U.S. history.” (Edward Epstein, “House Republicans Seek to Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent,” CQ Today, 4/10/08)

“Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today expressed his support for President George W. Bush’s budget for Fiscal Year 2009. Although the budget isn’t perfect, Hatch supports the President’s goal to rein in spending and make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. . . . ‘If we do not make these tax cuts permanent, the nation will suffer the largest tax increase in history, almost $2.2 trillion over 10 years,’ Hatch said.” (Sen. Orrin Hatch, Press Release, “Hatch: Congress Must Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent To Keep Economy On Target,” 2/5/08)

“The day of reckoning, 2010, is rapidly approaching, and if we don’t extend the tax cuts americans will be confronted with the largest increase in personal income taxes since World War II.” (Sen. Lindsey Graham, Press Release, “Senator Lindsey Graham: A Taxing Burden,” 4/15/08)

EVERY AMERICAN WHO PAYS INCOME TAXES WILL BE HIT WITH A TAX INCREASE IF THE CUTS ARE NOT MADE PERMANENT

“President Bush has called on Congress to act to prevent tax increases. If Congress does not act, failure to extend the President’s tax relief permanently would raise taxes on American taxpayers in future years.” (U.S. Department Of Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy, “2008 Tax Relief Kit,” http://www.treas.gov/topics/taxes/TaxReliefKit2008.pdf, Accessed 5/14/08)

“In 2011, the small business expensing limit will shrink from $134,000 (indexed) to just $25,000, increasing the cost of capital investments for America’s small businesses;

“In 2011, the top tax rate on dividends will increase from 15 to 39.6 percent, while the top tax rate on capital gains will climb from 15 to 20 percent, raising the tax burden on retirees and families investing for their future;

“In 2011, low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit; and

“In 2011, the tax rate relief, the new 10-percent tax bracket, estate tax repeal, marriage penalty relief, and all the remaining tax relief enacted over the past few years will sunset, resulting in tax increases for every taxpayer who pays income taxes.”
(U.S. Department Of Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy, “2008 Tax Relief Kit,” http://www.treas.gov/topics/taxes/TaxReliefKit2008.pdf, Accessed 5/14/08)

WITHOUT PERMANENT TAX RELIEF, MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL SEE THEIR TAXES INCREASE BY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 2011

“A Family of Four with Two Children who earn:

“$50,000 annual income today ($53,400 in 2011) would see a $2,155 INCREASE (from $1,128 to $3,283) or a 191 percent higher tax bill;

“$60,000 annual income today ($64,100 in 2011) would see a $1,901 INCREASE (from $2,733 to $4,634) or a 70 percent higher tax bill.”

Tax Increases on Average…

116 million taxpayers–$1,833 increase
84 million women–$2,121 increase
48 million married couples–$3,007 increase
43 million families with children–$2,323 increase
12 million single women with dependents–$1,091 increase
18 million seniors–$2,181 increase
27 million small business owners–$4,066 increase
(U.S. Department Of Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy, “2008 Tax Relief Kit,” http://www.treas.gov/topics/taxes/TaxReliefKit2008.pdf, Accessed 5/14/08)

COMBINED EFFECTS OF THE 2001 – 2007 TAX RELIEF IN COLORADO, BASED ON RETURNS FILED IN 2007

Combined Effect Of All The Acts: 1,838,000
New Ten Percent Bracket: 1,647,000
Reduction In Top Rates: 514,000
Reduction In Marriage Penalty: 584,000
Increase in Child Tax Credit: 433,000
Reduction In Rates On Capital Gains And Dividends: 393,000
Returns With Business Income Benefiting From The Act: 532,000
(U.S. Department Of Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy, “2008 Tax Relief Kit,” http://www.treas.gov/topics/taxes/TaxReliefKit2008.pdf, Accessed 5/14/08)

UDALL IS A CONSISTENT OPPONENT OF EXTENDING OR MAKING PERMANENT TAX CUTS

In 2006, Udall Voted At Against The Tax Break Extensions Passage:

Tax Package – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would raise the minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 per hour by June 1, 2009 and increase the estate tax exemption to $5 million per individual and $10 million per couple, indexed for inflation, by Jan. 1, 2015. Estates between the maximum exemption and $25 million would be taxed at the maximum capital gains rate. Estates above $25 million would be taxed at 40 percent from 2010 to 2015 and indexed for inflation, and then at 30 percent permanently. The bill also would reduce the tax rate on the portion of the inheritance that exceeds the exemption. It also would extend through 2007 a group of expiring tax breaks, including the research and development credit, the maximum $4,000 tuition tax deduction for higher education and the deduction for state and local sales taxes.” (H.R. 5970, CQ Vote #425: Passed 230-180: R 196-21; D 34-158; I 0-1, 7/29/06, Udall voted Nay)

In 2005, Udall Voted Against The Budget Resolution Outlining The Tax Increase Prevention And Reconciliation Act Of 2005:

Fiscal 2006 Budget Resolution – Adoption. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would allow up to $843 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2006, plus $50 billion for operations in Iraq. It would call for mandatory spending cuts of $68.6 billion over five years and tax cuts totaling $106 billion over five years, $45 billion of it protected by reconciliation rules. Defense spending would increase by 4 percent over fiscal 2005, to $439 billion, and non-defense spending would be cut by 1 percent, to $404 billion.” (H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #88: Adopted 218-214: R 218-12; D 0-201; I 0-1, 3/17/05, Udall voted Nay)

Fiscal 2006 Budget Resolution – Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets for five years, limit discretionary spending to $843 billion in fiscal 2006, and provide instructions for reconciliation bills that would achieve $70 billion in tax cuts and $34.7 billion in savings to mandatory programs, including $10 billion in Medicaid savings.” (H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #149: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 214-211: R 214-15; D 0-195; I 0-1, 4/28/05, Udall voted Nay)

Udall Voted Against Adoption And The Conference Report On The Tax Extensions:

Tax Reconciliation – Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would extend about $70 billion in tax cuts over a five-year period. Reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends would be extended through 2010. It would extend through 2009 a tax provision that allows small businesses to write off up to $100,000 in depreciable assets in the year they are made. It would extend and increase alternative minimum tax exemption amounts for 2006 of $62,550 for a joint return, $42,500 for individuals, and $31,275 for married individuals who file separate returns.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #135: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 244-185: R 229-2; D 15-182; I 0-1, 5/10/06, Udall voted Nay)

Tax Reconciliation – Passage. “Passage of bill that would provide $56.1 billion to extend a series of tax cuts set to expire between 2005 and 2010. It would extend for two years, through 2010, reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends. It would also extend, for two years, a tax provision that allows small businesses to write off more than $100,000 in capital investments in the year they are made. It would allow for a one-year extension of the college tuition deduction, the research and experimentation tax credit and the state and local sales tax deduction in states without income taxes.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #621: Passed 234-197: R 225-3; D 9-193; I 0-1, 12/8/05, Udall voted Nay)

Udall Voted Nine Times To Strip Key Provisions Of The Legislation Or Against Moving The Bill Forward:

Tax Reconciliation – Recommit. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to recommit the conference report on the bill back to the conference committee with instructions to bring a new conference report to the floor by May 17, 2006, that would provide the maximum allowable amount of alternative minimum tax relief, eliminate House-passed provisions extending the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains and avoid increasing the federal budget deficit or the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #134: Motion rejected 190-239: R 3-228; D 186-11; I 1-0, 5/10/06, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Rule. “Adoption of the rule (H Res 805) that would provide for House floor consideration of the conference report on the bill that would extend about $70 billion in tax cuts over a five-year period.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #132: Adopted 228-194: R 227-0; D 1-193; I 0-1, 5/10/06, Udall voted Nay)

Tax Reconciliation – Motion To Instruct. “Larson, D-Conn., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report include three Senate-passed provisions related to tax benefits for oil companies; a provision in current law that allows two-year amortization of certain expenditures relating to oil and gas exploration; and foreign tax credit rules. The motion would also instruct conferees to drop House-passed provisions that would extend for two years the reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #121: Motion rejected 197-224: R 6-219; D 190-5; I 1-0, 5/3/06, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Motion To Instruct. “McDermott, D-Wash., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report include three Senate-passed provisions regarding benefit limits for oil companies using a certain type of accounting method for valuing inventory; a provision in current law that allows two-year amortization of certain expenditures relating to oil and gas exploration; and foreign tax credit rules. The motion would also instruct conferees to drop a House-passed provision that would extend for two years the reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #109: Motion rejected 190-232: R 4-223; D 185-9; I 1-0, 4/27/06, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Motion To Instruct. “Cardin, D-Md., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report include the Senate-passed provisions that would extend through 2009 the “savers’ credit” for contributions made by low-income taxpayers to certain retirement accounts, modify and extend through 2007 the research and development tax credit, and extend and increase the amount of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax. It would instruct conferees to reject House-passed provisions to extend lower rates on capital gains and dividends, and to insist that the conference report not increase the federal deficit or the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #94: Motion rejected 196-232: R 5-225; D 190-7; I 1-0, 4/6/06, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Motion To Instruct. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report include the Senate-passed provision relating to the Alternative Minimum Tax extension, eliminate House-passed provisions extending the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would terminate at the end of 2008 and insist that the conference report not increase the federal budget deficit or the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #74: Motion rejected 192-229: R 4-222; D 187-7; I 1-0, 3/29/06, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Motion To Instruct. “Neal, D-Mass., motion to instruct House conferees to include language that would accept the Senate-passed provision relating to the alternative minimum tax extension as well as eliminate House-passed provisions extending the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would terminate at the end of 2008. The motion also would instruct conferees to insist on a conference report that would not increase the federal deficit.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #7: Motion rejected 185-207: R 8-204; D 176-3; I 1-0, 2/8/06, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Recommit. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to recommit the bill to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to strike language related to the capital gains and dividend tax breaks as well as add a new section to the bill dealing with tax relief for the alternative minimum tax.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #620: Motion rejected 193-235: R 0-226; D 192-9; I 1-0, 12/8/05, Udall voted Yea)

Tax Reconciliation – Democratic Substitute. “Rangel, D-N.Y., substitute amendment that would extend for one year many expiring provisions such as the deduction for state and local retail sales taxes, the deduction for college tuition expenses, tax incentives for the District of Columbia and Indian reservations, the 15-year depreciation period for leasehold and restaurant improvements, qualified zone academy bonds and the Brownfields cleanup tax incentive. The amendment would also eliminate all individual minimum tax liability for incomes below $200,000 in the case of joint returns and below $100,000 in all other cases for taxable year 2006.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #619: Rejected 192-239: R 2-226; D 189-13; I 1-0, 12/8/05, Udall voted Yea)

SCRIPT: “Udall stood with extremist groups. And voted to block bipartisan energy reforms that could lower gas prices”

UDALL AGAINST GIVING A GAS TAX HOLIDAY TO BRING RELIEF TO COLORADANS DURING THE SUMMER TRAVEL SEASON

Udall Opposed The Gas Tax Holiday Proposed By Both Republican Senator John McCain And Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. “The so-called ‘temporary gas tax holiday’ that Senators Clinton and McCain propose won’t deliver this needed relief. This will not create the economic relief they say it will, because prices will continue to rise until we address the real source of this problem. We do need to provide immediate relief for families hard-hit by spiraling gas prices, and we can do that by demanding the President stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will ease the production crunch that is causing these skyrocketing gas prices.” (Mark Udall Press Release, “Udall Answers Clinton Gas Tax Challenge, Stands With Coloradans For Meaningful Energy Relief,” 5/2/08)

Udall Called The Tax Holiday A “Short-Sighted Washington Game.” “It is exactly the kind of short-sighted Washington game that keeps us from getting real results to our energy problem. Experts across the ideological spectrum agree that it will increase the deficit, drain money away from Colorado roads and bridges, and hurt the environment, all without actually making prices lower for drivers.” (Mark Udall Press Release, “Udall Answers Clinton Gas Tax Challenge, Stands With Coloradans For Meaningful Energy Relief,” 5/2/08)

According To The Denver Post, Mark Udall “Rejected The Idea Of A Holiday From The 18.4-Cent Federal Gas Tax.” “In the Colorado delegation, Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar and Democratic Reps. Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs and Ed Perlmutter of Golden have rejected the idea of a holiday from the 18.4-cent federal gas tax. They called it a temporary fix lacking a guarantee that oil companies would pass savings along to motorists.” (Anne C. Mulken, “Dueling Fuel Philosophies On Collision Course In Congress,” The Denver Post, 5/6/08)

“Udall Argued Against Suspending The 18.4-Cent Federal Gasoline Tax (24.4 Cents For Diesel) For The Summer.” “And as for the ‘gas tax holiday’ being pushed by White House contenders Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Udall argued against suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax (24.4 cents for diesel) for the summer. He said that revenue is needed for repairing federal highways and bridge repairs.” (Peter Roper, “Two Views On Skyrocketing Fuel Prices,” The Pueblo Chieftain, 5/7/08)

“‘I don’t believe [lifting the tax] would lower prices and could affect thousands of jobs all over the country in construction,’ said Udall, who represents Boulder and the 2nd Congressional District.” (Peter Roper, “Two Views On Skyrocketing Fuel Prices,” The Pueblo Chieftain, 5/7/08)

UDALL NOT OPPOSED TO RAISING GAS TAX BY 50 CENTS A GALLON

Mark Udall Said He Would Vote “Yes” To Raising The Gas Tax By 50 Cents A Gallon If Enough House Members Would Vote For It As Well. “At an energy conference in June 2002, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, an Eldorado Springs Democrat, was asked, if there was a bill to raise gas taxes by 50 cents a gallon, would he vote for it. According to an article in the Foster Natural Gas Report, Udall responded: ‘If there were ever 217 other members of the House willing to face the firing squad, yes. . . . This country is not ready for that approach.’” (Mike Riley, “Political Polygraph,” The Denver Post, 7/22/08)

UDALL SAYS HE’S DEDICATED TO ENDING “ADDICTION” TO FOREIGN OIL TO LOWER ENERGY COSTS…

“There Is No Issue I Have Spent More Time On In My Public Service Career Than Working For Real, Responsible Change In Our Energy Policy - The Kind That Breaks Our Addiction To Foreign Oil And Puts Us On A Path To Greater National Security, A Stronger Economy, And Lower Energy Costs For Our Families. There Is Certainly No Question That Families Are Hurting With The Soaring Cost Of Energy And Need Relief.” (Mark Udall Press Release, “Udall Answers Clinton Gas Tax Challenge, Stands With Coloradans For Meaningful Energy Relief,” 5/2/08)

… BUT UDALL IS AGAINST INCREASING DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION TO END DEPENDENCE ON SOURCES OF FOREIGN OIL TO LOWER GAS PRICES

DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION:

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):

Udall Voted At Least Seven Times Against Allowing Oil And Gas Leasing In ANWR:

Energy Policy – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would overhaul the nation’s energy policy and provide for approximately $8 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would authorize the Interior Department to hold a lease sale for oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, on a total of about 1.6 million acres. Makers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether would be protected from liability, but would have to cease production of the additive by 2015. The bill would grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over reliability standards for electricity transmission networks and extend daylight-saving time by two months.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #132: Passed 249-183: R 208-22; D 41-160; I 0-1, 4/21/05, Udall voted Nay)

Energy Policy – ANWR Leasing. “Markey, D-Mass., amendment that would strike the provision in the bill that would allow leases for oil and gas exploration, development and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #122: Rejected 200-231: R 29-201; D 170-30; I 1-0, 4/20/05, Udall voted Yea)

Energy Plan – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would overhaul the nation’s energy policies through changes in such areas as production, conservation, taxes and research. The bill would restructure the electricity system, allow oil and gas leasing in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and provide $18.7 billion in tax breaks over 11 years for energy production, conservation and alternative fuels. It also would block tax breaks for corporations that relocate offshore.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #145: Passed 247-175: R 207-17; D 40-157; I 0-1, 4/11/03, Udall voted Nay)

Energy Plan – ANWR Drilling. “Markey, D-Mass., amendment that would delete language authorizing the Interior Department to grant oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 197-228: R 29-194; D 167-34; I 1-0, 4/10/03, Udall voted Yea)

Fiscal 2003 Omnibus Appropriations – Recommit. “Obey, D-Wis., motion to recommit the conference report on the joint resolution that would provide $397.4 billion in fiscal 2003 spending to the conference committee with instructions to strike several environmental-related provisions including one that would permit leasing studies of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to add language that would provide additional funding for conservation resource programs and $500 million for state and local ‘first responders.’” (H. J. Res. 2, CQ Vote #31: Motion rejected 193-226: R 1-219; D 191-7; I 1-0, 2/13/03, Udall voted Yea)

Energy Plan – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would make numerous changes to the nation’s energy policies including those in the areas of production, conservation, taxes, and research. The bill includes allowing oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; offering incentives for offshore drilling; funding nuclear energy, clean coal, and oil and gas research; extending tax credits for energy-efficiency and coal technology; and raising fuel efficiency standards for sport-utility vehicles and light trucks. It would provide $33.5 billion in tax credits over 10 years for energy producers and consumers.” (H.R. 4, CQ Vote #320: Passed 240-189: R 203-16; D 36-172; I 1-1, 8/2/01, Udall voted Nay)

Energy Plan – ANWR Drilling Ban. “Markey, D-Mass., amendment that would maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development.” (H.R. 4, CQ Vote #317: Rejected 206-223: R 34-186; D 171-36; I 1-1, 8/1/01, Udall voted Yea)

DOMESTIC OFFSHORE OIL & GAS DRILLING:

Udall Voted At Least Three Times Against Eliminating Prohibitions On Offshore Oil And Gas Drilling:

Offshore Drilling – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would end a federal moratorium on most offshore exploration and development of oil and natural gas but give states more control over drilling along their coasts. The bill would require the Interior Department to offer leases for offshore oil and gas drilling for 75 percent of available offshore locations on the Outer Continental Shelf. Drilling would be banned out to 50 miles off the coasts. States could repeal the ban and pursue exploration closer to the coast or extend protection to 100 miles. It would incrementally increase states’ share of revenue from offshore fuel production, bids for leases, and royalty payments from 4.6 percent in fiscal 2006 to 42.5 percent in fiscal 2022.” (H.R. 4761, CQ Vote #356: Passed 232-187: R 192-31; D 40-155; I 0-1, 6/29/06, Udall voted Nay)

Offshore Drilling – Continue Current Offshore Drilling Ban. “Markey, D-Mass., amendment that would strike all provisions in the bill to end the current ban on offshore drilling.” (H.R. 4761, CQ Vote #354: Rejected 170-249: R 22-201; D 147-48; I 1-0, 6/29/06, Udall voted Yea)

Fiscal 2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations – Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling. “Poe, R-Texas, en bloc amendments that would strike sections of the bill dealing with offshore preleasing, leasing or related activities, eliminating the moratoria on offshore oil and gas drilling.” (H.R. 5386, CQ Vote #164: Rejected 141-279: R 128-94; D 13-184; I 0-1, 5/18/06, Udall voted Nay)

Udall Voted To Express The Sense Of Congress That Prohibitions Against Drilling In The Great Lakes Should Be Maintained:

Energy Plan – Great Lakes Drilling. “Rogers, R-Mich., amendment that would express the sense of Congress that states along the Great Lakes should maintain existing prohibitions against offshore oil and gas drilling.” (H.R. 4, CQ Vote #318: Adopted 345-85: R 149-71; D 194-14; I 2-0, 8/1/01, Udall voted Yea)

DOMESTIC OIL SHALE EXTRACTION & PRODUCTION:

A Century Ago, Oil Shale Reserves In Colorado And Utah Were Eyed As “Storehouses Of Cheap Energy Solutions.” “In the early 20th century — long before politicians began to fret about soaring gas prices and America’s reliance on foreign oil — federal officials eyed a handful of desolate patches of land in western Colorado and Utah as potential storehouses of cheap energy solutions.”

“[T]he U.S. Department of the Interior wanted to extract the oil shale concentrated beneath these federal lands and turn it into oil.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

“They found that they didn’t have the drilling and processing capabilities to carry out the job.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

Times Have Changed And Companies Are Pouring Money Into Technologies To Harvest “800 Billion Barrels Of Recoverable Fossil Fuel In The Region.” “With crude-oil prices hovering at record highs, Royal Dutch Shell plc., Chevron Corp. and other big players are pouring money into technologies that might help them to start extracting some of the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable fossil fuel in the region.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

“Oil Shale Reserves, If Tapped, Could Surpass The Capacities Of Some Of The Biggest Oil Fields In The Middle East.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

But Mark Udall Is Obstructing The Oil Shale Process. “But there, potentially, is the rub. Conservation-minded Democrats in Congress, led by Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, are trying to slow down efforts to promote large-scale commercial production.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

“Udall and a fellow Coloradan, Sen. Ken Salazar, say they’re receptive, in theory, to oil-shale production, but are working to delay full implementation of industry-friendly language in a 2005 energy law that aggressively promoted oil-shale development.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

“Last June, Udall Sponsored An Amendment To A Fiscal 2008 Interior-Environment Spending Bill To Block The Issuance Of Rules Until The Fall Of This Year. Congress adopted it by a margin of six votes, eventually attaching it to the omnibus appropriations statute.” (Avery Palmer, “The Shale of Things to Come?” CQ Weekly, 4/28/08)

Fiscal 2008 Interior-Environment Appropriations – Oil Shale Reserves. “Udall, D-Colo., amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill for preparing or publishing final regulations regarding commercial leasing for oil shale reserves on public land as required under the 2005 energy law or to conduct oil shale leasing activities.” (H.R. 2643, CQ Vote #574: Adopted in Committee of the Whole 219-215: R 16-183; D 203-32, 6/27/07, Udall voted Yea)

DOMESTIC OIL REFINERIES:

“There Hasn’t Been A New Refinery Built In The U.S. Since 1976.” “There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.” (John W. Schoen, “U.S. Refiners Stretch To Meet Demand,” MSNBC, 11/22/04)

Udall Has Voted Consistently Against Passage (And Three Procedural Motions) To Ease And Speed The Process Of Building New Oil Refineries:

Refinery Permit Process – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would streamline the application process for companies to build refineries in the United States. The president would designate new sites suitable for oil refineries, including at least three sites on closed military bases. The EPA would provide financial assistance to states to facilitate applications for refineries. A new federal coordinator, appointed by the president, would be in charge of every federal refinery authorization.” (H.R. 5254, CQ Vote #232: Passed 238-179: R 221-2; D 17-176; I 0-1, 6/7/06, Udall voted Nay)

Oil Refinery Construction – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would allow state governors to opt into a streamlined regulatory process for refinery expansion and construction projects. It would require the president to designate federal sites for new oil refineries and allow the federal government to pay new refineries for the costs of significant delays due to lawsuits and government regulations. Price gouging on gasoline would be banned in times of emergencies. The bill also would direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price gouging after Hurricane Katrina. It would specify that the federal government could provide loan guarantees for the Alaska natural gas pipeline up to two years after enactment, unless the state of Alaska has a contractual agreement to complete construction of the pipeline.” (H.R. 3893, CQ Vote #519: Passed 212-210: R 212-13; D 0-196; I 0-1; 10/7/05, Udall voted Nay)

Oil Refinery Construction – Rule. “Adoption of the rule (H Res 481) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would allow state governors to opt into a streamlined regulatory process for refinery expansion and construction projects.” (H.R. 3893, CQ Vote #515: Adopted 216-201: R 216-5; D 0-195; I 0-1, 10/7/05, Udall voted Nay)

Oil Refinery Expansion – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would make it easier to build and expand oil refineries. It would designate the Department of Energy as the “lead agency” with authority over environmental reviews for refinery expansion and rebuilding, replacing the current system, which is spread over several agencies.” (H.R. 4517, CQ Vote #246: Passed 239-192: R 206-20; D 33-171; I 0-1, 6/16/04, Udall voted Nay)

Energy Policy And Oil Facility Expansion – Rule. “Adoption of the rule (H Res 671) to provide for House floor consideration a bill that would implement a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development and a bill that would make it easier to build and expand oil refineries.” (H.R. 4517, CQ Vote #237: Adopted 225-193: R 218-4; D 7-188; I 0-1, 6/15/04, Udall voted Nay)

Energy Policy And Oil Facility Expansion – Previous Question. “Hastings, R-Wash., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule (H Res 671) to provide for House floor consideration of a bill that would implement a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development and a bill that would make it easier to build and expand oil refineries.” (H.R. 4517, CQ Vote #236: Motion agreed to 218-197: R 218-1; D 0-195; I 0-1, 6/15/04, Udall voted Nay)

UDALL SIDES WITH EXTREME ENVIRONMENTALISTS OVER ENERGY & ECONOMIC SECURITY

Udall Supported By Sierra Club And League Of Conservation Voters:

Udall Has Received At Least $299,974 From Environmentalists. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/14/08)

Udall’s Campaign Committee’s Received At Least $50,000 From Special Interest Environmental PACs, Including The Sierra Club And The League Of Conservation Voters. (Federal Election Commission Website, www.fec.gov, Accessed 7/14/08)

Udall Has Been Endorsed By The League Of Conservation Voters (LCV). (League Of Conservation Voters Website, http://www.lcv.org/campaigns/endorsements/, 7/22/08)

“LCV has endorsed Mark Udall because long before it was politically popular, he was working to increase the use of renewable energy and end our addiction to oil. Electing Udall to the Senate brings us one step closer to finally addressing the issue of global warming.” (LCV Website, http://www.lcv.org/feedback/colorado_canvass.html, Accessed 7/22/08)

LCV Is Running An Ad Campaign Attacking Udall’s Opponent, Bob Schaffer. (LCV Ad Campaign Website, http://fingerprintbob.com/, Accessed 7/22/08)

Udall Endorsed By The Sierra Club. (Sierra Club Website, http://www.sierraclub.org/endorsements/2008/, 7/22/08)

Sierra Club And League Of Conservation Voters Oppose Drilling For Domestic Oil To Decrease Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Oil:

LCV Is Asking Its Members To Call On Congress And Say “More Drilling Is Not The Answer.” (LCV Website, http://action.lcv.org/campaign/june_drilling/iw8ksw5r47wdkitb, 7/22/08)

“Anti-environmentalists in Congress are adding amendments to all kinds of bills calling for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off our coasts, and other sensitive areas—even to bills that aren’t remotely related to energy! Drilling is not the answer to our energy crisis. Fill out the form below to tell your members of Congress that we must resist drilling and pursue clean, renewable energy alternatives.” (LCV Website, http://action.lcv.org/campaign/june_drilling/iw8ksw5r47wdkitb, 7/22/08)

Sierra Club Is Asking Its Members To Call On Congress To Oppose Offshore Drilling And Drilling In ANWR, Saying “Protect Our Coasts And Arctic Refuge From Drilling.” (Sierra Club Website, www.sierraclub.org, Accessed 7/22/08)