Why did Edwards vote for the Republican Energy bill?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Sierra Club Blasts Energy Policy Act

The Energy Policy Act of 2003 introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) threatens the environment and takes us backward by increasing our dependence on polluting and dangerous sources of energy such as coal, oil, and nuclear power. Instead of putting America on the path to a clean and affordable energy future, the Senate energy bill opens up our wilderness areas to oil and gas drilling, increases our dependence on polluting and dangerous sources of energy by throwing billions of dollars in subsidies at them and fails to offer meaningful measures to cut global-warming pollution.

* Threatens our coasts and other public lands by allowing new fossil fuel exploration all along the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and more public lands. This will destroy some of our nation's most unique wilderness areas and critical fish and wildlife habitats.
* Puts consumers at risk from electricity markets. Power companies will be allowed to set up multiple subsidiaries and blur their financial reports, leading to market manipulation similar to that seen during the California energy crisis.
* Funnels billions of dollars to polluting industries. This bill gives away 10.7 billion dollars in tax breaks to polluters and 30 billion dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry.
* Ignores the property rights of farmers and ranchers and provides incentives for destructive coal-bed methane drilling that threatens thousands of acres of sensitive lands in the West and its scarce water resources.
* Opens Native American lands for mining and drilling by preventing the nation's hallmark environmental law, the Environmental Protection Act, from applying to Native American lands.
* Allows automakers to sell more gas guzzlers by failing to raise fuel economy standards.
* Fails to increase our use of clean, renewable energy by excluding a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that would ensure that more of our electricity comes from clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/bush_bill.asp

Edwards voted YES: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00317

[AP]

1. This was a procedural vote

As extensively discussed before (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=356581#356699):

The motion to recommit was out of order, and the chair ruled it so. Then the ruling was appealed, and then they took a motion to table the motion to appeal the motion to recommit. Would it have been beneficial if the appeal was upheld, yes and no. The appeal would have failed, and we end up with the same result. Unless the Dems needed to stall, this motion was pointless. I'm all for the environment, but holding up parliamentary procedure votes as examples is not going to sway me.

--

In other words: 

Jeffords made a motion to recommit S1186 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations with an amednemnt (SP682).

A point of order was raised about Jeffords motion to recommit.

The chair, yes this guy is a Republican, ruled that the motion to recommit by Jeffords was out of order.

Some Democrats wanted to appeal that ruling, just because an appeal is heard does not mean it will be upheld.

Republicans made a motion to table the appeal. That motion passed 60-39 and Edwards did indeed vote Yea on it.

But this is a procedural vote, the appeal would have lost. And regardless, the eventual bill was vitiated the next month and replaced by the House (conference?) version. Now, you are perfectly welcome to make the argument that this was so important that Edwards should have made the No vote out of protest along with the 39 others, but it in no way reflects his position on the environment.

[The Traveler]

2. Then what aspect of his voting record does?

Just a question.

[AP]

3. does what?

[The Traveler]

5. Reflect his position

on the environment. I ask because I honestly do not know the answer, not imply his position is dishonorable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Funny that's not what Edwards said when he bragged about voting YES

- DES MOINES, IA - North Carolina Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about the passage of the 2003 Energy Policy Act.

"I am pleased that the energy bill that I voted for more than doubles the use of ethanol in gasoline and encourages energy conservation. I have long supported increasing our commitment to renewable energy. It’s just common sense. Expanding renewable energy options decreases our dependence on foreign supplies, helps protect the environment, and boosts our economy with new jobs and investment - particularly in agricultural states like Iowa.

"While I believe this bill was significantly better than the original Republican bill, I remain convinced that we can and must do far more to help protect our environment. And, if Republicans want to get a bill enacted into law, it is critical that they not load this bill with anti-environment, anti-consumer provisions that are bad for Iowa and bad for America."
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=175

Well that's his spin. The Sierra Club, as you can see above, disagrees. So did moveon.org, I participated in their action alert, calling my Senator to vote against it.


PS, that thread you mention is about a different vote in 1999, this is a vote from 2003, if you can't keep your facts straight, could you please try to at least keep the years straight?

Of course, Edwards was on the wrong side of both votes. Why does he always seem to stand with the Republicans on energy issues?


Like the Jeffords Amendment on renewable energy in 2002:

A groundbreaking renewable energy portfolio standard - in which Congress would set concrete goals to increase America's reliance on wind and solar energy - was rejected on March 14, 2002. Amendment 3017, sponsored by Sen. Jeffords (I-VT), would have mandated that 20% of America's electricity be generated from renewable energy like wind and solar by the year 2020.
http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=50&chamber=S&congress=1072

Again, Edwards voted NO - Against renewable energy
(Kerry voted YES)

[AP]

6. Sorry, If I'm not mistaken, there were a half dozen threads started on the

1999 bill by way fewer than a half dozen DU'ers and I thought this was just another one. That's what happens when people cry wolf. You presume it's the same old same old rather than something new.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Yes, you are mistaken which is why you are unable to refute the facts

I've presented.

[AP]

10. How could I be both "unable to refute facts" and "mistaken"?

If I thought it was the 99 bill, how could I have even looked into the facts behind the 03 bill.

However, now that I've looked at that vote, I'll venture to guess that if Liebarman and Kerry were afraid to vote NO and if only 12 Dems voted against it, there's a story to be told which is much less incriminating than you'd like.

I'm sure someone who knows about this bill will provide it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Afraid?

lol

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. Not the same bill.

The bill he voted for (the House version) is not the same bill you refer to in your initial thread. Furthermore, the vote you reference in the initial thread was a procedural vote, not a substantive vote on the bill itself.

Such distortions make it clear that this entire thread is a hit piece, and devoid of a substantive desire for debate...

[IndianaGreen]

18. A hit piece on Edwards? Shocking! Absolutely shocking!

Edwards must be surging!

[AP]

8. Only 12 Dem Senators voted NO, and NONE of them were running for prez.

Why didn't Kerry or Lieberman vote no?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. So you agree that Edwards was wrong?

If you are willing to agree that Edwards was wrong to vote with the Republicans on this, and maybe explain his reason for doing so, I would be happy to move on to a discussion of whether Kerry not voting with the Republicans was just as wrong. (Kerry did not vote.)


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy

[HFishbine]

12. And we're back to

"He's no worse than the rest of them."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Will Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, or Sharpton be the nominee

That's what matters here.

[redqueen]

19. How inspiring. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

13. Why did Kerry vote for the IRW, NCLB and the Patriot act?

Kerry and Edwards are peas in a pod. There is more to being a liberal than environmental issues.
Instead of attacking Edwards why aren't you getting Kerry to denounce some of his voting mistakes? Find me a CLEAR statement that tells me Kerry will reverse the policy on preventive war, the Patriot act and NCLB and he would get my vote.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. KIck

No secret there, those votes have been discussed a million times on DU.

Vote your conscience.

PS, why is Dean such a phony on environmental issues? At least the voters have seen through him.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Why did Kerry miss such a critical vote?

Perhaps Kerry couldn't nuance his vote on such a bill.

Do I detect panic in the Kerry camp?