On Halloween, I wrote a post detailing Sen. Inhofe’s (R-Denier) attempt to stop the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee from doing their jobs and voting on a piece of legislation. Why boycott the energy and climate legislation committee markup? Because then it may not get out of that committee, dying before an up-or-down vote could be made in the whole Senate. That up-or-down concept received a lot of attention when the Cons were in charge and Democrats were trying to debate the Cons’ bills and offer amendments. Now? Not so much. Hypocrites.
In response to Sen. Inhofe’s childish tantrum to not play with others, Sen. Boxer laid out a potential work-around: using an interpretation of the rules to move the bill out of committee without having any minority party members present. The committee met today to vote on the bill. Sen. Inhofe and his car of clowns didn’t bother to show up. Sen. Boxer had the committee vote – and they passed the bill out.
Sen. Inhofe, predictably, ran to the press, crying that things were so unfair and Sen. Boxer was a big meanie who didn’t want to listen to them.
Who the frack cares? Seriously. The Cons made the decision to not participate. They know what’s at stake, which is why they’re trying to prevent any reasonable consideration of energy and climate legislation. They have dirty energy corporations to appease with their votes. As to Inhofe’s complaint that how often the procedure has been used? More nonsense. Either come to the table with an intent to do some work or shut the hell up.
This leads to 2 conclusions. 1: Do your damn job, Cons! 2: More of this, please. If the Cons don’t want to participate in good faith, Dems shouldn’t let that hold them back from moving bills through Congress.
[Update 11/6/09]: Oh, Max Baucus (Bought-ND) was the only person to vote against the bill. 10-1 was the final number and all of them were Democrats. I don’t care that the bill passed as it relates to Baucus. He tried to destroy the health care bill and voted against this bill. I’m supporting whoever his next opponent is – in a potential primary but for sure the general election. Votes have consequences, Max. You’re done.
[Update 2 11/8/09]: The more you read, the more you know. It turns out that the Cons wanted the EPA to redo a lengthy analysis on the legislation, something the EPA justifiably rejected on the grounds that the differences between a new analysis and an analysis already done would be undetectable by their models. Further, I read this at Climate Progress:
Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations.
Isn’t that interesting? Senate Cons have no valid reason to demand another analysis be done, not when they didn’t allow, request or demand such studies be performed during their mishandling of the Senate in the recent past.