Why Would Anyone Vote Against This?

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/18/2007 9:03:43 AM

Why would anyone vote against this?

...Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to ensure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the effects of climate change when planning water projects. The amendment, offered to the Water Resources Development Act, requires the Corps to use the best available climate science, account for potential future impacts of climate change on storms and floods, and account for the costs and benefits associated with the loss and protection of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural systems that can buffer the effects of climate change. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Tom Carper (D-DE) also co-sponsored the amendment.

Meanwhile, according to Florida Sportsman, not exactly an environmental "radical" group:

Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to ensure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the effects of climate change when planning water projects. The amendment, offered to the Water Resources Development Act, requires the Corps to use the best available climate science, account for potential future impacts of climate change on storms and floods, and account for the costs and benefits associated with the loss and protection of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural systems that can buffer the effects of climate change. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Tom Carper (D-DE) also co-sponsored the amendment.

Seems pretty non-controversial, right?  Well, think again.  In the end, the U.S. Senate voted 51-42 in favor of Sen. Kerry's amendment, but that wasn't enough to pass this legislation, as 60 votes were needed under agreed-upon rules.  Interestingly, 10 Republicans voted "yes," including Virginia's John Warner.  Just 7 Democrats voted "no," including Jim Webb. 

Huh?  Was this some sort of mistake or what?  John Warner votes FOR a bill that - in the words of Congressional Quarterly, "would put the Senate on record in support of scientific predictions that global warming may lead to rising sea levels, droughts and more intense storms," but Jim Webb votes against?  Am I completely missing something here?  I sure hope so, because on the surface this makes absolutely no sense to me and is extremely disappointing.  I definitely look forward to hearing from Sen. Webb's office on this critically important issue.

P.S.  See here for more commentary.

Comments



Why, indeed? (Don Wells - 5/18/2007 11:13:47 AM)
I called Senator Webb's office (202-224-4024), and asked about this amendment vote that occurred on 05-15.  The staffer I talked to acknowledged that she too had seen the dailyKos 'First Global Warming Vote' posting, and said that she didn't know why Jim voted NO while John Warner voted YES.  I gave my full address, phone number and email, and asked for a formal answer to the question.  I encourage other RK readers to also make this request.

When we backed Jim Webb, we knew that we were trying to elect an ornery independent-minded thinker, one who wouldn't necessarily vote with the herd of his party.  We knew that, and we said that we wanted that outcome.  We therefore should be prepared to make considerable allowances for 'strange' votes by our favorite Senator.

So, I asked about Jim's NO vote on Reid-Feingold several days ago.  The staffer was ready with an explanation for that case, noting that it was at first glance inconsistent with Jim's general stance on the War.  However, Jim explained himself in a floor speech: he has been and still is opposed to any kind of timetable until diplomacy has been properly tried.  I gulped hard and accepted that explanation.

So, it will be interesting to learn Jim Webb's reason for voting NO on an almost non-partisan climate change amendment to an Army Corps of Engineers bill, an amendment on which John Warner and a number of other prominent Republicans voted YES.  I recommend that other RK readers join me in calling and/or writing to Jim's offices asking for an explanation.



What Is Webb Thinking (xcurmudgeon - 5/18/2007 11:55:07 AM)
I'm troubled by this vote, too.  Yes, we expect some unusual votes from Jim, but he needs to get on the right side of the global warming issue.  We are so far behind, policywise, that it is really alarming, and now we have Webb on the wrong side with Warner on the right side.

Jim may have a good technical explanation for his vote, but I sure want to hear a strong statement from him that he supports aggressive, comprehensive legislation to combat global climate change.



Yeah, I couldn't believe this vote either. What has Sen. Webb (beachmom - 5/18/2007 2:00:58 PM)
said in the past about global climate change?  I have to be honest that I don't recall the issue coming up in the Senate campaign, and am concerned that he doesn't think it's all that important.  The only other thing I would think is that he was casting a "technical" vote (somehow rejecting the amendment for some small technicality), but hopefully we'll find out more from posters who have called his office.

So, yeah, in my view, he's had two bad votes this week.  At least with Reid/Feingold, we got an explantion. 



Webb said... (Lowell - 5/18/2007 3:30:52 PM)
"The United States is responsible for roughly ΒΌ of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. It is important that we take a leadership role in addressing this issue today. I am pleased the debate in Washington has changed on global warming. I believe strongly that scientific principles can be applied in a way that preserves our environment and also allows sensible economic growth."

See here for more.



Thanks for the link, Lowell. (beachmom - 5/18/2007 4:04:43 PM)
Okay, so he believes in global warming and thinks it's important.  So that makes his vote here that much more puzzling.


Agreed. (Lowell - 5/18/2007 4:06:08 PM)
This vote makes ZERO sense, unless I am totally missing something.


Webb's reasoning on Army Corps vote (Lowell - 5/21/2007 5:59:42 PM)
Courtesy of Jim Webb's press secretary, Jessica Smith, in response to my question regarding Sen. Webb's vote on this matter:

Senator Webb didn't support the legislation because he felt it was a matter of bureaucracy, not global warming. Chairman Barbara Boxer read a letter on the Floor from the Army Corps saying that adding this language would be redundant, since the Corps of Engineers already takes global warming and environmental changes into account with respect to water projects.  The Senator is committed to environmental protection-he has signed onto a number of letters and pieces of legislation, ranging from increased funding for Chesapeake Bay restoration to accelerating international negotiations on global warming.  But, this vote was on adding a layer of bureaucracy and redundancy that the Senator felt was counter-productive.

That makes me feel much better, but the global warming challenge remains, as evidenced by today's long-term international energy forecast from the Energy Information Administration.  Let's hope that Jim Webb takes the lead on this subject, as he has done on so many others, in months and years to come!