Feingold Energy Act Motion (yesterday, but important)

[MH1]

(I just posted this in the Feingold Group but thought I'd cross-post here because it's interesting and important, IMO. If it was already posted yesterday or I'm breaking some rule by cross-posting, please let me know.)


Hat tip to Sandy at LUTD.

Yesterday Feingold raised a point of order, trying to stop the energy bill because it blows the budget rather badly. His point of order was defeated, of course, but now you have a record vote (#212) on fiscal responsibility. This vote is to WAIVE the budget so this expensive energy bill can be passed (i.e. a "Yea" vote is fiscally irresponsible):

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---71
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---29
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gregg (R-NH)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Probably only one more to add to a growing list, but I still think it was a good move.

The budget portion of Feingold's statement:

This bill digs us deeper into a budget black hole; it fails to decrease our dependence on foreign oil; it rolls back important consumer protections; and, finally, it undermines some of the fundamental environmental laws that our citizens rely upon. First, the costs of this conference report are staggering. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment will increase direct spending by $2.2 billion between 2006 and 2010 and by $1.6 billion between 2006 and 2015. Additionally, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that this bill will reduce revenues by $7.9 billion between 2005 and 2010 and by $12.3 billion from 2005-2015. Plus, on top of the direct spending, the conference report authorizes more than $66 billion in federal spending, according to the watchdog groups National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Our nation's budget position has deteriorated significantly over the past few years, in large part because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted, and we now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to the fiscally responsible policies that helped put our nation on a sound fiscal footing in the 1990s, and that means making sure the bills we pass are paid for. To do otherwise is to simply dig our deficit hole even deeper, thus adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren.

< snip >

There are provisions of the bill that I fully support and am pleased the conference committee included. But I can't support this conference report. Mr. President, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the energy bill conference report includes direct spending of more than $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 period, exceeding the amount allocated by the budget resolution. I hope my colleagues will join me in sustaining a Budget Act point of order.

(apologies for the big box on the vote - I don't think I can do a table here or I would.)

[MH1]

1. Stabenow / Levin justification:

They voted "Yes" to blowing the budget on this energy bill. Here's why they say they wanted it so bad (statement posted at Stabenow's senate website):

http://stabenow.senate.gov/press/2005/072905EnergyBill.htm

...
“I am extremely pleased that the ban against drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes – which I was able to put in place in 2001 – is made permanent by this bill. This important protection for the Great Lakes will benefit not only Michigan residents but all who live around the lakes,” Stabenow said. “This bill also includes my request for a Federal Trade Commission investigation of possible gas price manipulation. In addition, this energy bill includes important tax credits to help make new technologies like hybrid, fuel cell and alternative fuel cars more affordable for the American public. These auto tax credits will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help the Big Three create jobs with these new emerging technologies.”

The bill includes the following provisions that are interest to Michigan communities:

• Strong provisions for the research, development, and demonstration of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.
• Tax credits – available for five years – for hybrid, clean diesel, and fuel cell vehicles. There is a per manufacturer cap of 60,000 on the aggregate number of hybrid and clean diesel vehicles that can qualify for the tax credit, which ensures that the domestic manufacturers can benefit from the tax credit to the same extent that foreign manufacturers can.
• A $200 million authorization each year for five years to fund federal and state grant and loan programs to replace older diesel technology with clean diesel.
• A permanent ban on drilling in the Great Lakes. In the three previous years, Congress has passed temporary bans on Great Lakes drilling, which were sponsored by Sen. Stabenow and cosponsored by Sen. Levin.
• Requirements for the Department of Energy to develop and use cost-effective procedures for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which minimize taxpayer costs and maximize total oil inventories. This Senate had previously approved this language in a bipartisan amendment by Sen. Levin and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
• An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission of potential price gouging by oil companies - a provision authored by Stabenow - was included in the final bill. Only 50 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump is determined by the cost of crude oil. The investigation will ensure that Michigan residents are not being unfairly gouged by domestic gasoline producers and refineries.
• Critical steps to improve the reliability of our electrical grid and promote electricity transmission infrastructure development. Given our dependency on electric power – which was underscored by the massive August 2003 blackout – the bill includes steps to ensure mandatory and enforceable reliability standards.
• A short-term solution for addressing air quality issues in west Michigan, which is plagued with pollution that comes up from Chicago and other urban centers downwind.
• Reauthorization of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) until 2007 at $5.1 billion per year, and reauthorizes state weatherization programs through 2008 at $2.1 billion per year.
• A requirement for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and submit a budget roadmap to Congress on what efforts and actions would be required to transition to fuel cell vehicles and a hydrogen economy by 2020.
• An extension of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) credit to manufacturers for dual-fueled vehicles, which is intended to encourage production of these vehicles.
• Strong R&D and demonstration programs to promote replacement or retrofit of diesel school buses and city transit buses with fuel cell and other advanced technology buses.
• Includes provisions to promote the use of renewable fuels, including a mandate for refiners to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol or biofuels by 2012.
...

I thought it would be interesting to see what some of these folks had to say for themselves.

[MH1]

2. Byrd / Rockefeller take the "clean coal" bribe

Statement on Byrd website.

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_july/byrd_news_rls_energy_bill.html

[Mass]

3. a little bit of pork goes a long way toward irresponsibility

both fiscally and environmentally speaking.

What puzzles me are the 4 Senators who voted both against the point of order and against the bill, or those who voted for the point of order and for the bill.

I guess consistancy is difficult to reach.

[MH1]

4. Clarification - vote is to waive the budget

So, if I did this right, you have 2 Senators who voted FOR the waiver (let's blow the budget) but against the energy bill (guess they opposed it for other reasons): Dodd (D-CT) and Feinstein (D-CA). Then there were 5 who voted AGAINST the waiver (let's not blow the budget) but aw what the hell, let's pass this bill anyway: Bayh (D-IN), Chambliss (R-GA), Cornyn (R-TX), Isakson (R-GA), Kohl (D-WI).

In both cases, all 100 Senators recorded either a YEA or NAY (no absences or abstentions).