RK ARCHIVE - Breaking: Senate Republicans Successfully Filibuster Energy Bill

UPDATE: Sen. Webb voted to end debate and move forward with the bill, Sen. Warner voted with the filibuster to block it.

UPDATE #2: Anyone have time to call Warner's office at (202) 224-2023 and see why he opposed this bill? If you do, please let us know what response you get in the comments below.

UPDATE #3 (Lowell): I called Sen. Warner's office and left a message. I praised Warner for his climate change bill, but expressed confusion that he would support THAT but not THIS bill. I also noted that Virginia doesn't produce any oil to speak of, so the Big Oil tax provisions shouldn't have affected Sen. Warner's vote against cloture. I'm even more confused than ever...

UPDATE #4 (TGM): Just called Warner's office at 2:30pm, they said they haven't released a statement yet. I said I just wanted to register my disappointment with Sen. Warner voting against the energy bill. The woman said, "Well, he didn't vote AGAINST it, he just voted to oppose cloture." I said, "Are you saying he supported the bill AND the filibuster?" She said, "No ... we don't have a statement yet." Like Lowell said, wicked confusing.

Comments

tax (Adam Malle - 12/7/2007 12:18:41 PM)

why don't they just send a bill through without oil welfare cuts and deal with it after we have control of the whitehouse.they know it is a waste of time to try to make corp. america pay their part with this president and the slim majority in congrass. we need to take the RES and CAFE increase and work on the rest in '09.

Numbers game (TheGreenMiles - 12/7/2007 4:01:15 PM)

Got 53 votes today. Bringing back the presidential candidates (Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama) adds four votes. If dropping the Big Oil subsidy cuts wins only three votes, it's through.

Fruitless (tx2vadem - 12/7/2007 7:05:53 PM)

Even if they managed to secure the remaining votes to close debate and then passed the bill, the president has said he will veto it. Democrats would then, of course, need two thirds of each body voting to overturn the veto. And I think we can all grant that has a snowball's chance in Hell of happening. They couldn't even swing an override for the widely popular SCHIP.

In the last vote the House had on this, they had 235 votes. Republican leaders in the House have proven to be very effective at keeping their caucus together to block any actions by Democrats. You'll have to wait until January 2009 for any progress at the national level on this. But this is great fodder for the elections.

Why don't they (Randy Klear - 12/7/2007 12:49:53 PM)

force the Republicans to actually filibuster the bill instead of rolling over on a quickie cloture vote? Make the GOP work for their obstructions, dammit.

paygo (acallidryas - 12/7/2007 2:46:16 PM)

Right now the Congress is operating under pay-as-you-go (paygo) rules, meaning that if they fund one thing they have to cut the funding for something else. So, the current energy bill includes $15 billion over the next 10 years to support research into alternative and renewable energy. The $15 billion had to come from somewhere, and the logical place was the current massive tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industries. Remove the tax breaks, you have to remove the funding for alternative fuels.

And I don't think CAFE, which historically hasn't had much teeth, will do much as long as our money is being poured into oil and gas instead of alternatives.

CAFE (TheGreenMiles - 12/7/2007 2:58:16 PM)

What do you mean it "historically hasn't had much teeth"? The law has worked exactly as intended. The CAFE standard set by law has been exactly the standard automakers have manufactured to. The CAFE standard and actual CAFE have mirrored each other almost exactly. If you want to say lawmakers have set too low a standard, fine, but don't imply CAFE is irrelevant.

cafe (acallidryas - 12/7/2007 3:35:26 PM)

You're right. I was ranting and thinking about how since the penalties are economic they aren't too forceful when you're also providing companies with economic incentives to waste oil and gasoline. I wrote too quickly.

I wish the CAFE standards were higher, but they have worked at the levels they've been placed.

paygo (Adam Malle - 12/7/2007 4:05:27 PM)

i understand that but why not get the bill we want/need now and in '09 put together the bill to pay for it.? kind of a postponed paygo

Yeah, great huh? (Lowell - 12/7/2007 3:39:00 PM)

It's bizarre because he's co-sponsoring a climate change bill, and because he SOUNDS sincere about his perception that global warming is a national security threat. Got me.

It looks like we're going to have to wait (David Campbell - 12/7/2007 5:34:50 PM)

for a Democratic President and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate (including another Senator Warner from Virginia) to pass meaningful energy legislation. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

Successful Filibuster My Tush! (soccerdem - 12/8/2007 7:07:58 PM)

How come in 2005, before the shift to Democratic control in both houses, the Republicans could frighten the Democrats into voting as the Republicans wanted (afterward, kindly called a "compromise") by threatening to change the Constitutional rules on voting. Remember that--a short time ago? The Dems then caved in. Thereafter.

Now, the majority is reversed and the Dems DON'T threaten the Republicans as they themselves were threatened. Vas gibst?