DEMOCRATS ARE SCRAMBLING TO PREVENT THE SENATE FROM DELIVERING A SLAP TO OBAMA ON CLIMATE CHANGE
- 6-11-2010
CLIMATE SHOWDOWN: Democrat leaders are scrambling to prevent the Senate from delivering a stinging slap to President Obama on climate change. They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates. The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions. Imagine having useless bureaucrats telling you what you can and cannot drive, and how much you will pay for power. It is the latest attempt to grab endless governmental power under the guise of needless "reforms."
VETO THREAT: Alexander Bolton writes in The Hill that if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill. So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it.
They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Bolton reports. A spokeswoman for Reid declined to comment on the offer. But Democrats on Wednesday thought it was good enough to win a crucial vote on the Republican resolution.
SIMPLE MAJORITY: Murkowski, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is using the Congressional Review Act, an element of the Contract With America, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers. The Review Act expedites a floor vote. Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they would need in both chambers to overturn an Obama veto. But Republicans say passing the resolution through one chamber would be a big win.
"Anything close to half the Senate says this is a congressional responsibility and not the administration’s, that’s a strong message from the country to the president,” said Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), referring to the EPA plan to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Democrats suffered a serious setback Tuesday when Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce panel, announced he would vote for Murkowski’s resolution. He joined Democrat Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are co-sponsors of the measure.
DEVASTATING IMPACT: If Republicans keep their conference unified, that would give them 45 votes for Murkowski’s proposal, with a handful Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.), in play as potential allies. Rockefeller said EPA regulation of carbon could have a “devastating” impact on West Virginia. He threw his support to Murkowski after his leaders denied him a vote on his alternative bill resolution, which would prevent the EPA curbing carbon emissions for two years from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories.
Murkowski’s resolution is broader, blocking EPA regulation of cars and trucks, not just industrial plants. A Murkowski aide said the senator would prefer to focus on exempting stationary sources but Democratic leaders refused to allow a vote on a narrow plan, such as Rockefeller’s. “The Congressional Review Act is like going nuclear, but you have to go nuclear— otherwise you can’t get around the opposition of the Democratic leadership,” said Robert Dillon, Murkowski’s spokesman.
TIME OUT: Murkowski initially offered a one-year “time out” on EPA restricting emissions from stationary industrial sources, but Democratic leaders did not give it floor time, Dillon said. Rockefeller now says a vote on his proposal is a distinct possibility, even though it would present a major obstacle to Obama’s plan to restrict emissions via EPA regulation. “There well could be” a vote on his resolution, Rockefeller said. Unlike Murkowski’s measure, Rockefeller’s bill will need 60 votes to overcome procedural obstacles.
LOBBYISTS: Several pivotal Democrat senators are now leaning against Murkowski’s resolution. They are Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.). Environmental group lobbyists expressed confidence Wednesday that Murkowski’s resolution would not garner 51 votes.
“I think we’re looking pretty good on this,” said David Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club. “It’s not really about preserving the right of Congress, it’s about killing climate legislation.” Passage of the resolution would have dealt a severe blow to Obama’s plan to pass climate change legislation this year, he said.
PELOSI: Reid could hold a floor vote on Rockefeller’s resolution in the fall, after the fate of comprehensive energy and climate legislation is decided this summer. If Murkowski’s resolution passes, it faces an uphill struggle in the House. Democratic and Republican leadership aides say Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would not be required to schedule a vote on the resolution.
House Republicans would need a discharge petition to force action. A resolution sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has 120 Republican cosponsors. A second resolution sponsored by Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.) has 50 cosponsors, including a significant number of Democrats.
If the Republicans can delay any further action until after the November they should be able to kill what has become the cap-an-trade monstrosity and is rapidly getting worse – and which Obama is willing to pass at all costs, even if utility prices rise by hundreds of dollars a month, in the midst of a global recession, no less.
But the 47-53 vote showed that, even in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Congress remains divided over how best to address climate change. The debate, in which some lawmakers suggested federal regulation would strike a devastating blow to the economy, suggested the Senate is far from decided on whether to put a price on industrial emissions that stem from everyday activities such as lighting a home or driving a car.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who drafted the resolution that would have barred the EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, said the central question was whether Congress or the administration would set the rules for curbing carbon dioxide. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has proposed rules that would subject large greenhouse-gas emitters — such as coal-fired utilities and oil refineries — to federal regulation starting next year.
"Politically accountable members of the House and Senate, not unelected bureaucrats, must develop our nation's energy and climate policies," said Murkowski, whose resolution of disapproval would have overturned EPA's December 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. "I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Congress will not pass bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulations."
Six Senate Democrats — Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia — voted in favor of the Murkowski resolution. No Republicans opposed it.
Several backers, including moderate Maine GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, said they were open to the idea of Congress crafting a climate bill. But it is unclear what form that measure would take, because there are several competing proposals.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., on Wednesday introduced legislation that would promote energy efficiency and renewable fuels but would not place a price on carbon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., met with key committee chairmen Thursday to draft a compromise Democratic proposal that would impose an overall cap on greenhouse gases.
"They're all over the place, which tells you there's no clear direction," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "How many energy bills are floating around just in the Senate right now? It's very confused right now."
But Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said he was confident the Senate would pass climate legislation next month provided President Obama continues to press for the measure.
"We have a political moment now," he said. "It's sad that it takes a tragedy in the Gulf to force people to reevaluate our relationship with energy."
Email to Friend
Fill in the form below to send this article to a friend: