Why did Kerry vote against the Boxer amendment?

[politicasista]

I was reading a reply under KG's thread in GDP about Kerry's statement on Roberts/Civil Rights. Some person wondered why he didn't show up for the Plame/CIA hearings and why he voted against Boxer/Coburn amendment.

[Mass]

1. For the hearings, my answer is that it was more important to

have the witness testify than for Kerry to make a statement. I know he was not there, but I am not sure if senators other than Dorgan and Schumer (who are in charge of this type of hearings, were supposed to go).

As for Boxer/Coburn, I do not know, but he was far from alone, and why I do not understand, it may have been something bad in the amendment (Coburn is generally bad omen). I really would like to find a reason.

[kerrygoddess]

2. I suspect he knows something more

being on the Pan Asian FR committee. Just a guess.

[Mass]

3. You may be right

but you cant expect people not to criticize him on that vote. I was expecting him to make a statement on the senate record on this issue. I did not see anything.

[sandnsea]

4. China needs more energy???

Considering the large population, if they don't use nuclear energy, the alternative pollution is too horrific to contemplate.

Maybe?

I don't know, I hate nuclear power. But it's better than the air emissions from some other forms of power, especially considering the lack of regulatory control in China.

[Mass]

5. The issue is not the construction of the nuclear power plant

If the US does not build it, another country will and frankly, it is better than another coal or oil plant when it comes to greenhouse gas.

The issue is why the US should subsidize a huge loan (5 billions dollars) that will cost money to the tax payers for a revenue for the US that does not seem obvious. I listened to the debates and the best I heard was 5,000 jobs in PA for a few years, the contract going to Westinghouse who is now a British company.

[TayTay]

6. No, the issue wasn't the nukes per se

That didn't really come up. Sen. Boxer was worried about the Chinese having access to American nuclear know how. (I thought this was a bit hollow as we have graduated a ton of Nuclear physicists who have already returned to China with the knowledge.)

The problem was about guaranteeing money for a British company to build a plant in China. Why is the US guaranteeing this money? Westinghouse has something to do with it. (They get a manufacturing contract that will emply 5,000 folks temporarily in PA to do something for this, I think. Coul dbe wrong on this.)

So, why did Sen. Kerry vote to let this less than savory loan guarantee go through? Who benefits from this? Who loses? And what's up with that anyway? (Not a big deal for me. More of a curiosity?)

[sandnsea]

7. Uhm, China needs energy

Westinghouse needs the contract. The loan guarantee is necessary for that to happen. Since China is going to build the plant anyway, it's better if we have oversight. :shrug:

I don't know, I'm just throwing out wild guesses.

[sandnsea]

8. Krugman on Yuan

I find the whole China economy thing fascinating, from an objective standpoint. To watch a county that big make various changes, try to figure out what they're up to, if anything. How it all plays out around the globe. And things like, why did John Kerry vote for that loan. Just fascinating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22krugman.html