Can somebody explain why Kerry voted NO on CAFE standards?

[Mass]

He sponsored the previous proposition?

Any clue?

[TayTay]

1. Which one? Levin's Amendment or Durbin's?

Durbin's was much, much better. Maybe he voted against one because the other one was better.

[Mass]

2. Both

I am not surprised by his vote on the Levin amendment, but I am very surprised by his vote on the Durbin one.

May be Biden was right and there was a loophole in the Durbin amendment, but I hope he will have a statement to explain that.

[TayTay]

3. He should because he has been in favor of raising

CAFE standards. I don't think it's the 'jobs will be lost' argument. I thought Durbin's amendment was good.

We'll have to get the explanation. I'm sure it will come out.

[Mass]

4. Biden was explaining that the bill was bad

because it was counting cars sold worldwide and not only in the US. If true, it would have been a problem because it would have allowed Japanese companies to sell small cars in Europe and Japan while selling their SUV in the States. (McCain voted also against the amendment and he was Kerry's co-sponsor in the previous CAFE bill).

But if this is the reason, let's hope it makes it clear.

[TayTay]

5. That sounds like it

It's not like a CAFE bill was going to get through the 109th (Weasel) Congress anyway.

Are you saying that Kerry voted against his own co-sponsored bill? (Missing something here.)

[Mass]

6. No,

but he co-sponsored with McCain the CAFE bill that was defeated in the 108th Congress, and that had the same goals than the Durbin's one, I think.

Apparently it was the 107th Congress.

[Mass]

7. He was not alone voting NO among those who are known to be

strong supporters of CAFE standards: Biden and McCain voted NO and Boxer did not even vote, while she voted against Levin.

So I am not sure what it is about.

[TayTay]

8. It was the nukes subsidiary

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/23/nuclear_energy/index.html

[Mass]

9. In Durbin's amendment??

After reading the article, this is the McCain-Lieberman amendment, for which Kerry voted.

[TayTay]

10. And I think the Durbin one was for

the reasons you cited upthread. That does explain both votes.

[Mass]

11. I think so too

I read the bill and it clearly does not do anything for improving mileage in the US.

I think both amendments were doomed from the beginning, so basically voting for or against them was just an emphasis on one thing or another, with little consequences.

I think it is too bad that the Kerry-Jeffords amendment on clean energy never went to the floor, as it was a very good amendment.

[TayTay]

12. That's why this is the 109th (weasel) Congress

Almost nothing good is going to come out of this Congress.

Maybe we will have better luck in the 110th Congress. (I can hope, right?)

[kerrygoddess]

13. It did go to the floor Wednesday

It nearly passed - 46 - 49.

[Mass]

14. No it is a different one on climate change (Amndt 844)

The Jeffords-Kerry one was about renewable energies (Amndt 771).

[Mass]

15. From the Senate record, Kerry's statement on the issue.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support what Senator Durbin is trying to achieve with this amendment regarding CAFE standards. Over the past few years, I have looked closely at this issue and believe strongly that we need a consensus path forward. I do not believe, however, that Senator Durbin's amendment or Senator Bond's amendment will achieve that goal. I have followed closely the information available from the National Academy of Sciences and have spoken with labor groups, automobile manufacturers, and environmental groups. We can, and must, significantly increase the efficiency of our automobile fleet, but we cannot do it without creating new incentives for automobile manufacturers to retool plants to produce advanced technology, more efficient vehicles, and lead the way toward an energy-independent America.