Mother Jones: Is There a Tri-Partisan Path Forward for a Climate Bill?

[beachmom]

Really good read.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/there-tri-partisan-path-forward-climate-bill

With debate of a climate bill at a stand-still in the Environment and Public Works Committee, a bipartisan group of Senators on Wednesday announced that they're working on an alternative path to passing a bill.

John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said they are meeting with fellow senators and with administration officials to work out a proposal on climate and energy legislation that they will hand over to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that incorporates the components of legislation being crafted within the various committees of jurisdiction along with work with senators outside those committees.

...

What is important is both the public appearance by Graham and the emergence of Lieberman as the third wingman. In his remarks, Graham seemed to distance himself from Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee that have thus far boycotted markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill. "My hope is that participation is seen as positive," said Graham. "If you can't participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?"

...

Lieberman has been working with other senators on his own, particularly on the nuclear power issue, but this is his first public entry into the debate this year. Of course, Lieberman's recent statements on health care have made him not the most popular legislator among Democrats, but he has a long history on climate legislation, dating back to the first climate bill in 2003, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. "He's been a great leader on climate in years past," said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation. "He has all sorts of ability to bring people together. He's a great addition to the power team."

This is an interesting development. It shows things have been going horribly wrong in the EPW committee, with Inhofe and his antics. I think there may be something to this runaround approach.

In case you missed it, watch the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman press conference here:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/04/HP/R/25045/Partisan+Divide+Affects+Climate+Markup.aspx

[beachmom]

1. In other news, the Administration will push back a treaty until next year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/04/us-climate-change-copenhagen-treaty

US scales down hopes of global climate change treaty in Copenhagen

• Binding agreement not expected in Copenhagen
• Administration working towards treaty next year

The US has given up hope of reaching a global climate change treaty at Copenhagen and is working towards a deal late next year, the Obama administration said today. The decision ends hopes of a legally binding deal being sealed next month.

"We have to be honest in the process and deal with the realities that we don't have time in these four weeks to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty," said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.

More at the link. This is all deflating, but frankly, it doesn't surprise me.

Lots of Kerry quotes (but it's not letting me copy beyond first 2 paragrahps).

[wisteria]

2. Thanks Beachmom. As long as this ultimately leads to vote and is passed I can be patient.

I like this comment from Graham,

"If you can't participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?"

[beachmom]

3. Another good read in Time:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/04/kerry-graham-lieberman-launch-climate-change-framework/

Having twittered that the trio are “drafting” legislation, I received a call from Kerry's office. Apparently, creating a framework based off the six versions passed by the relevant committees of jurisdiction and deciding what can and cannot pass with 60 votes (even after I directly asked Kerry in today's press conference if this will form the basis of the final bill on the floor and he said, “Yes, it will”) does not construe “drafting” legislation. So, let's think of Kerry, Graham and Lieberman as Reid's very own climate czars: they will whittle down ideas and take him their final recommendations.

The move bolsters the chances that some climate change legislation will make it to the Senate floor. Though any timeline is still complicated by the eternally delayed process of health care reform. After all, the 2010 elections are rapidly approaching and the odds of passing a massive climate change bill grow dimmer as every month ticks by. To that end, rumors yesterday swirled on the Hill that the bill may get shunted till after the 2010 midterm elections. “Yes, I've heard that,” Senator Jay Rockefeller told reporters. “And the idea makes me sad.”

[YvonneCa]

4. Boxer's committee just voted to send it to the floor...

...without the Republicans. Al Gore said last night (Maddow) that he thinks it will be voted on before Copenhagen...that things are going on behind the scenes. ;)

[beachmom]

5. Yeah, I saw something on Twitter that it was voted out, and felt

confused about it.

Thanks for the update.

Here is that video of Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/al-gore-defends-joe-liebe_n_346822.html

[YvonneCa]

6. You are very welcome. Interesting...

...isn't it? ;)

[karynnj]

7. Kerry's office's correction makes this make sense

This is not that different than the Health Care situation where Reid is with Dodd and Baucus. I get the swamp's point, but there have been some good sources questioning if Kerry was involved in an alternative to his own Kerry/Boxer bill. This makes sense and with 6 committees involved, it would not be clear who should be in the team to consolidate the bills. (There was an early Boxer comment when asked about it being Kerry/Boxer that ultimately Reid would be the one.)

It really seems Kerry needs to push the Commerce committee. Can the chair of a committee really keep a bill from going forward or can the committee members insist it be taken up?

[beachmom]

8. Must read post in Grist:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-05-what-does-recent-senate-drama-on-the-climate-bill-mean-peak-box/

There’ve been some weird goings-on in Congress around the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill over the past few days. So let’s take a step back and try to get a handle on how the story is unfolding.

...

Boxer desperately wanted to play the same role in the Senate. It didn’t work out in early 2008 with the Lieberman-Warner bill, but she’s been working overtime to make it work this go-round. One recurring theme of last week’s three-day hearing marathon was Boxer’s refrain that she’s going to work with other senators, that the bill will change, that she’s open to feedback. She practically hung out an “Open for Business” sign. She clearly wants to run this bill and emulate Waxman’s success.

Just as badly, lots of other people don’t want her to. Baucus made it clear early on that his committee would mark up a bill too, and then other committees jumped in. Inside EPW, James Inhofe desperately wants to give Boxer a black eye. That’s why he and the rest of the committee Republicans boycotted the markup of the bill on Tuesday and Wednesday and show every sign of carrying on with that boycott. It now looks like EPW is going to pass a bill out of committee without a Republican ever having touched or debated it and without substantial markup of any kind.

That bill will be a dead letter.

Basically, what he is saying is that the Senate is not the House and that this had turned into a Boxer problem (much of it not Sen. Boxer's fault, although apparently some of her staffers have not been helpful in the past). I just had a weird feeling a few days ago that if Boxer bypassed the boycott, the bill was dead. It seems that pretty much is true. But in come the "grown-ups":

So a bill that’s Pure Boxer won’t fly. That’s why you saw, on Wednesday, the Senate’s perceived centrists—Kerry, Graham, and their new buddy Joe Lieberman—swoop in and and open a “dual track” of negotiations, in consultation with the White House. (Lieberman lives to do this kind of thing.) ...

...

Similarly, by stepping in, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are letting the political establishment know that the Very Serious grown-ups are back in charge. (It’s pretty telling that Kerry feels the need to craft another bill alongside the one with his name on it.) They will go to the White House, close the door, and hash out what kind of bill can really pass.

In short, it seems that Boxer’s high-water mark of influence on the bill has passed, and with a fizzle rather than a bang.

What I find amazing is that everyone cheered for Boxer on DailyKos, when the reality was that the current bill was dead, and that a new one would rise in its place. My hope is that Kerry/Graham/Lieberman can do something about those other committees so that this thing can actually pass.

[Luftmensch067]

9. And I'm trying not to worry how this will affect Boxer's re-election!

Hopefully, it won't have any bearing, but I do think she's being targeted because of that.

[beachmom]

10. Well, the above is real inside baseball stuff. The official story

is that Boxer dutifully got the bill out of committee against that crazy Inhofe. I don't think California is going to listen to Inhofe.

[beachmom]

11. Lindsay Graham has an op-ed up in South Carolina:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/nov/08/clean-energy-bill-should-balanceenvironment/

He really is an asset to this cause because he speaks "conservative". This is interesting, and I suppose spells the beginnings of negotiation:

Both sides prefer to talk past each other. They have yet to embrace the fact that if we work together, we can balance environmental protection with the needs of business. The Boxer-Kerry legislation and Waxman-Markey, as currently written, both fall short of the mark.

There is a pathway forward -- if we choose to take it -- that creates sound environmental policy, promotes job creation and frees our nation from dependency on foreign oil.

An added benefit is that many of the solutions to the problem will be found right here in South Carolina.

It's time we step up and take the lead.

[beachmom]

12. Wow, Lindsay Graham is having a heck of a time in his state:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/graham-takes-heat-stance-climate-bill

$300K in attack ads funded by dirty fuel companies. Now this:

The Republican Party of Charleston County, S.C. on Monday voted to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham over his support for climate legislation and his willingness to work across party lines on the issue.

I don't think any of this is going to phase him.

[karynnj]

13. That is pretty incredible

Have they censured their governor yet? Plenty of reason to do that, but censuring someone for willingness to work across party lines is pretty ridiculous.

[wisteria]

14. Exactly. This speaks volumes about their priorities. n/t

[beachmom]

15. Mother Jones updated with the resolution. Holy mother of God:

Whereas, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Kerry (MA) have called for a bipartisan bill dealing with “climate change” via a “Cap & Trade” energy bill;

Whereas, the basis of Cap & Trade – global warming caused by carbon emissions – is still in doubt as evidenced by the past decade of cooling temperatures;

Whereas, the people of South Carolina can ill afford the job-killing Cap & Trade bill’s ripple effects on our state’s economy and on personal energy bills;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham supported TARP and has shown a willingness to discuss nationalizing U.S. banking institutions;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has shown a condescending attitude toward his constituents by calling them “bigots” when they oppose his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated on many occasions that his primary concern is to “be relevant”;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham continues to hold the Republican Party hostage and undermines Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit by joining the “Gang of 10” and the “Gang of 14”;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham – in the name of bipartisanship – continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.

Therefore, let it be resolved: The Charleston County Republican Party Executive Committee respectfully requests, with sincere sadness that the South Carolina Republican Party withdraw their resolution commending U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and that the Charleston Country Republican Party censure U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as: passing a “Cap & Trade” energy bill, bailing out banks, and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.

[MBS]

16. "past decade of cooling temperatures?"

on what planet? :crazy:
Here in Boston, the mid-November, temps are more San Francisco than New England. . not even any frost yet

As you said, this speaks volumes about their priorities.

[karynnj]

17. Wow - that actually is a list of many honorable, responsible things Graham has done

You really have to give him credit - it takes real courage to take the stands he has.

[beachmom]

18. Ugh. Climate Bill Likely on the Shelf For Rest of the Year (WSJ)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125795001554343591.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won't be voted on until at least next year.

Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.

"It's common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year," Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch.

This is interesting:

Ms. Stabenow said the Agriculture Committee—which has jurisdiction over climate provisions fundamental to containing costs and cutting emissions in the farming and forestry sectors--might not even debate or vote on any provisions for the bill.

"The question is whether or not Agriculture actually marks up something or it gets done on the floor," she said.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), who chairs the Agriculture Committee, is facing a tough re-election campaign next year, and handling a highly controversial climate-change bill in her panel may risk alienating voters.

That actually is good news. Maybe we will just be stuck with Baucus. Kerry says later in the article that he doesn't want to "create artificial deadlines".