Hill Heat

Demonstrating the jurisdictional scope of climate policy, Markey’s iCAP cap-and-trade legislation (HR 6186) was referred to ten different committees yesterday:

• Energy and Commerce
• Ways and Means
• Science and Technology
• Natural Resources
• Agriculture
• Foreign Affairs
• Education and Labor
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Oversight and Government Reform
• Rules

Yesterday, House minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent a letter attacking the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036) and Rep. Ed Markey’s Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (H.R. 6186):

I write to you today regarding Select Committee on Energy Independence Chairman Ed Markey’s (D-MA) introduction of his long-awaited legislation aimed at reducing the level of carbon in the air by imposing new taxes on emitting it. Based on his comments last week, Chairman Markey’s legislation is expected to be much more far-reaching – and much more costly – than the legislation the Senate is debating this week. Make no mistake: House Republicans support responsible climate change policies that will protect our environment, advance our energy security, and create more American jobs. But in both cases, Chairman Markey’s bill and the Senate bill amount to large tax increases that would impact virtually the entire economy and would saddle consumers with even higher energy costs. I believe this approach is not only inadvisable; it is reckless and inappropriate . . .

While I disagree fervently with the logic of raising energy costs while consumers already face astronomical prices for gasoline, I respect your prerogative as Speaker to follow through on your promise and schedule a vote on the bill. And frankly, I welcome the debate. At a time when families are reconsidering their summer travel plans because of the record-high gas prices, I believe there is no clearer distinction between the two parties in Congress than on this issue.

The Hill reports that Pelosi’s office responded:

“The Energy and Commerce Committee and its members are taking the lead in developing climate change legislation in the House,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. “This is an extremely complicated issue, and we will continue to move forward as quickly as possible, regardless of the outcome of the current Senate debate.”

He added, “We welcome Republican involvement on the climate change issue … As the climate crisis is an issue of global importance, everyone needs to be involved in finding bipartisan solutions.”

From the Wonk Room.

On May 27, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about the Climate Security Act (S. 3036):

Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

A week later, Sen. Jim Inhofe changed “reorganization” to “expansion,” writing in the Wall Street Journal that the climate legislation “will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal.”

Conservative senators have been coordinated on the Senate floor in repeating the Wall Street Journal-Inhofe message:

Judd Gregg (R-N.H.):

These allowances which really are a consumption tax in my opinion will essentially be used to greatly expand the government.

John Cornyn (R-Tex.):

This is the kind of huge expansion in government power over our lives and over the economy that is really unprecedented in our country, and I suggest is the wrong solution – is a – is a wrong answer to the – to what confronts us today.

George Voinovich (R-Ohio):

I feel it is overly aggressive, outpacing what technology can provide and thus assuring economic pain on the country and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion in American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities and families.

The right wing is still upset with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, and wants to go back to an era without the system of labor, health, economic, and environmental protections that built the American middle class. They fear that the American public will realize that a New Green Deal of progressive policies could restore our economic future. Yesterday, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) complained:

The bill before us creates a raft of new government spending programs.

He and his fellow conservatives have put us on a sinking ship, are burning the life preservers, and won’t even let us build a “raft.” As David Roberts writes, “Unless we want to go down with the ship, we need to start building an ark.”

Cross-posted from Gristmill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he won’t allow floor debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036) to extend beyond next week, according to an article in E&E News (subs. only) today. “If we don’t finish it next week, then it means something has gone wrong,” he’s quoted as saying.

But at an earlier press conference, he told reporters, “I want to be patient and try to get as much done as soon as we can. If we arrive at a point where we’re just wasting our time, we will have to figure out something else.”

If Reid sticks to what he told E&E News, the Senate won’t have a lot of time to debate actual adjustments to the legislation. They’ve already burned two and a half days of debate without getting to any votes on amendments, thanks to procedural stalling by the Republican leadership that called for 30 hours of discussion before moving to amendments. After those 30 hours were expended, they demanded that the entire 492-page bill be read aloud, claiming they hadn’t yet had time to read it.

During those first 30 hours, GOP leaders offered a taste of the fight ahead: They downplayed the need for climate action and framed Lieberman-Warner as a bill that would destroy the economy. John Cornyn (R-Texas) even went so far as to make a chart declaring the bill the “Boxer Climate Tax.”

Some Republicans also attempted to make the case that the bill would increase the cost of gasoline at a time of already-record prices, citing the EPA’s analysis of the bill that projects a $0.53 cent increase in gasoline by 2030. For those of you counting, that’s about $0.02 a year. (Meanwhile, gasoline prices have increased from $1.47 per gallon in January 2001 to more than $4.00 a gallon today.) Kit Bond (R-Mo.) alleged that the Climate Security Act would have us all driving “golf carts,” and called the legislation as a whole a “complicated Soviet-style scheme.” The amendment process has yet to begin, but Republicans have already circulated 90 weakening amendments that they plan to offer.

Democrats, for their part, have argued that the bill will reduce the country’s dependence on oil and increase the use of alternatives, which will bring down energy costs for consumers. They’ve also talked up the bill’s provisions to shield consumers from increases, including an $800 billion consumer tax relief package and a $911 billion allowance to local electricity and gas utilities to help them cushion consumers from price swings, invest in renewables, and promote efficiency.

“Studies do not account for the cost of doing nothing,” said bill sponsor Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), noting that analyses of Lieberman-Warner have found that GDP would still grow and the economic impacts of the bill would be very small. Even those projections cannot take into account the potential for growth through a new green economy, or what could be lost if emissions are not curbed, argued Lieberman.

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who last year sponsored a tougher climate bill (S. 309) along with Boxer, vowed to introduce an amendment to strengthen the targets for emissions cuts. He also talked up energy efficiency, raising fuel-economy standards, and investing in mass transit as integral means of further reducing emissions.

Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for the Senate to actually get to the amendment process …

Cross-posted from Gristmill.

By objecting to the unanimous consent request to dispense with the reading of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), Republicans are forcing the clerk to read the entirety of the Boxer substitute amendment [PDF], claiming they haven’t had enough time to read it yet. Boxer, of course, protested, but her appeal was rejected.

Cross-posted from Gristmill.

After last night’s cloture vote, Senate Republicans asked for 30 hours before legislatively productive debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036) could begin.

Here’s the top Lieberman-Warner news of the day, in summation:

• Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blasted Republicans for delaying and dragging out debate on the legislation. “Republicans forced us to waste two days before a vote that they overwhelmingly supported,” said Reid. “Now, our Republican friends are forcing us to burn another 30 hours of procedural time before we can begin debate. That’s two filibusters and more than three days of valuable Senate time wasted – all for a vote that most Republicans supported.”
• George Voinovich (R-Ohio), sponsor of his own industry-friendly alternative climate plan, discussed why he thinks the federal government should invest in technology first and put in place caps later. He said it would be an effort to help developing nations who need the technology. A more cynical read might be that it reflects the interests of the energy industry lobbyists that helped him write it.
• Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) talked about the strain that $4-a-gallon-plus gas prices have put on the wallets of his constituents, and talked up why the Senate should pass a bill that will help move America away from reliance on oil. “The answer is not just drill,” said Nelson. “The answer is alternative energy sources.”
• Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) bemoaned the fact that the bill as is doesn’t contain explicit support for the nuclear power industry. Lieberman and Warner have already floated an amendment [PDF] that would add such support, but Isakson is pretty livid that it’s not in the main bill. “If it’s part of the solution, why is it not a part of the Lieberman-Warner climate legislation?” he asked, accusing those who don’t want such language in the bill of “bias.” He also said he’s going to propose an amendment to include $25 billion in tax credits for the preservation of open space and public lands for the purpose of sequestering carbon emissions. He does not appear aware of the fact that the bill already contains significant support for the use of offsets, much of which would go to passive sequestration in agriculture and forestry.
• Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) challenged Isakson on nukes, saying the bill already does enough for the industry without giving it preferential treatment—she pointed to the support of corporations like Exelon.
• Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) talked about the problems with the bill’s allowance allocations to entities like state governments, and argued that not enough of the auction revenues would be returned to the public. He called the bill the “mother of all earmarks” because it would bring trillions of dollars into the treasury and redistribute it to “interest groups.” He’s talked about this before, which David Roberts covered here.
• Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) talked about the amendments he’s going to propose, which include lowering the emissions reductions targets to the levels in the bill he cosponsored with Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), inserting the safety-valve also included in Bingaman-Specter, adding something about “technology acceleration,” including stronger language on “international competitiveness,” and inserting more support for coal to give it a “pathway to the future.”
• Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) equated taking action on climate change to fighting fascism, and cited all the public health and national security gains to be made by doing so. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Conn.) each spoke at length about all the scientific reasons that comprehensive, strong action is imperative now. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) talked about the concerns climate change poses for food security, and called inaction “immoral.”
• John Barrasso and Mike Enzi (both R-Wyo.) each took a turn to bemoaning the possible economic ramifications of the bill, which they fear will harm industries, workers, small refineries, puppies, etc. Enzi proclaimed: “I’m not a fear-mongerer, I’m an environmentalist,” he said. But, he added, “I suspect folks in Wyoming are not willing to pay the costs of this bill.”
• Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also attempted to play compassionate conservative, claiming that this bill threatens low-income Americans, but then went on to complain about the very provisions of the bill intended to protect those consumers. Larry Craig did some concern-trolling on behalf of consumers as well: “Why don’t we call this bill the China-India Economic Stimulus Act of 2008?” asked Craig, before going on to talk about how awesome forests are because they sequester carbon. And yes, he’s still in the Senate.
• Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) admitted that we need to cap carbon emissions, but said that this bill is “too complicated, too expensive.” He also complained about the EPA’s analysis of the bill that projects a $0.53 cent increase in gasoline by 2030. For those of you counting, that’s about $0.02 a year. Meanwhile, gasoline prices have increased from $1.47 per gallon in Jan. 2001, to more than $4.00 a gallon today.
• Sponsors Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.), and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) took turns defending the legislation throughout the day.
• James Inhofe (R-Okla.) took every opportunity granted him to poo-poo the bill.
• Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) became only the second Republican of the day (after Warner, of course) to speak in favor of the legislation. “It’s a human issue, a planetary issue, a moral issue,” said Snowe. “The science of the matter tells us that business as usual is certainly not an option.”
• Snowe was later joined by Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), who also spoke in favor of the bill that she is co-sponsoring. Dole also pushed for the explicit inclusion of support for nuclear power.
• Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) vowed to introduce an amendment to strengthen the targets for emissions cuts. He also talked up energy efficiency, raising fuel economy standards, and investing in mass transit.

Those are the most interesting contributions to today’s debate, which didn’t wrap up until 9 p.m. EST. Overall, it provided insight to how the amendment process will play out. Opponents of action will paint it as a question of the economy versus the environment, and supporters will fight tooth-and-nail to prove that not only is this the bill science says we need to fight climate change, but it will help the economy, create new jobs, and improve national security.

Below is the schedule for the afternoon debate, as agreed to by universal consent before the lunch break. Between each speaker’s alloted time is five minutes for rebuttal from the opposing side. The times below depend, of course, on no additional delays be added to the schedule.

2:15 PM	Boxer
2:40 PM	Inhofe
3:15 PM	Kerry
3:50 PM	Barrasso
4:10 PM	Whitehouse
4:30 PM	Grassley
4:50 PM	Casey
5:10 PM	Enzi
5:35 PM	Carper
6:10 PM	Alexander
6:35 PM	Warner
7:00 PM	Bond
7:25 PM	Lieberman
8:00 PM	Vitter
8:20 PM	Nelson (Fla.)
8:40 PM	Craig
9:00 PM	Democrat to be named
9:20 PM	Gregg

In a 74-14 roll call vote, the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036). Republicans refused to allow Majority Leader Harry Reid dispense with the thirty hours of debate permitted under Senate rules before official consideration of S. 3036 begins, thus ensuring another full day of debate on the issue.

The senators voting against the motion were Byrd (D-W. Va.), and Republicans Bunning, Shelby, Craig, DeMint, Hatch, Enzi, Barasso, Sessions, Coburn, Kyl, McConnell, Allard, Inhofe.

A coalition of corporations, labor, religious and environmental organizations has announced its support of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) manager’s mark of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Several are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which called for mandatory climate legislation in January 2007, but more recently has been wrapped in internal conflict.

The letter begins:

The undersigned companies and organizations urge you to vote in favor of the Climate Security Act, S. 3036 (formerly S. 2191), which is expected to be considered by the full Senate beginning June 2. This is a very important vote on a bipartisan plan to address climate change. Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America’s economy, security, quality of life and natural environment.

USCAP signatories are Alcoa, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Exelon Corporation, FPL Group, General Electric, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRG Energy, Inc, and PG&E Corporation. Non-USCAP signatories are Calpine Corporation, Interfaith Power and Light Campaign, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Izaak Walton League of America, National Grid, National Parks Conservation Association, Pew Environment Group, Public Service Enterprise Group, Trout Unlimited, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting (UA).

Full text is below:

The White House has issued a Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP) on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), indicating that President Bush will veto the bill, citing fundamental differences with its approach, including mandatory emissions reductions and carbon pricing. The full text of the SAP is below.