Wondering what it means to go with an energy-only bill? You can expect the Bingaman proposal (from Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico) to focus mostly on providing for alternative energy sources, new nuclear power plants, and some research and development funding. As iterated by Majority Leader Reid (D-NV), it will also include some new language to address the oil leak in the Gulf like a lifting of the oil company liability cap and some reforms of the oversight and regulatory process.
What it won't have is a pricing collar on carbon, which is really desperately needed to address our country's contributions to global climate change. The conventional thinking is that we absolutely must reduce our emissions by about 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. That's not far away, and it doesn't take into consideration the likelihood that developing countries, like China and India, won't move until after we have.
It's certainly possible that the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal could meet the 60-vote threshold needed to be attached as an amendment if we could keep most Dems onboard (around ten are seen as possible or likely no votes) and count on environmentally-friendly Republicans to stick their necks out for a system their own party has decried as "cap-and-tax" during an election year, but somehow I imagine leadership would just include it in the bill if that were seen as a likelihood.
Assuming for a moment that Kerry-Lieberman fails, it's obviously preferable for the Senate to get the ball rolling on alternative energy sources than to do nothing right now, but it is certainly less than we need them to do.
The answer, apparently, is doing their jobs.*
After close to two months of doubt at whether the White House and Congressional Dems were up to tackling yet another major progressive policy priority, some serious rumblings are being heard inside the beltway as President Obama and Majority Leader Reid begin sounding the clarion call for Senate passage of a comprehensive energy and climate bill.
Just days ago, President Obama told reporters at a news conference on the Gulf oil leak, "If nothing else this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to move forward with this legislation."
Yesterday, during a speech in Pittsburgh, the president laid out the case more fully. "The time has come to aggressively accelerate that transition," he said. "The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future."
Specifically calling for a new carbon pricing system, Obama praised the House for the action they took last year and called on the Senate to do the same, declaring that, "the votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months."
Read the President's full remarks here.
Many were quick to criticize the White House for not seizing the moment sooner, but I've long argued that the Obama administration's legislative strategy often involves small, behind-the-scenes actions methodically done in preparation of the right time for major action. I think that time is upon us.
We've known for weeks that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been meeting with remaining climate bill authors John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and that he had promised to meet with relevant committee chairs after returning from break, but Reid and Obama seem to be moving in lock-step now on the impetus of the crisis in the Gulf.
Earlier today, POLITICO reported on a letter Reid sent to eight committee chairs asking them to report any language they wanted considered as part of the energy and climate bill out before July 4th, setting the Senate up for floor debate in July. Reid also asked them to attach language dealing swiftly with "the existing situation [in the Gulf] and to reduce the risks of such a catastrophe happening again.” The bill is likely to include a lifting of the liability cap for oil companies, stricter oversight, and major reforms of the Mineral Management Service.
Kerry and Lieberman were quick to praise the move, but it should be mentioned that it is unclear whether their American Power Act would provide the framework for the bill or if Reid is looking to move in another direction.
That said, it seems clearer that the Senate will try to address our nation's energy crisis and global climate change this year. Now if we could just get that leak under control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I say this with tongue in cheek as this Congress has already set itself apart as one of the most productive in U.S. history.
For background on this issue, see our earlier post here.
By now we're all aware of the massive oil leak into the waters of the Gulf. In the past few days, pundits have been spending a fair amount of time trying to predict what this crisis will do to the already-strained prospects for legislative energy and climate action this year.
In the days before the explosion even took place, a rivalry had developed involving the possible moving up of immigration reform on the legislative calendar at the expense of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill. That led to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatening to bail as the sole Republican attached to the bill he'd been helping to write for months and the indefinite delaying of the bill's scheduled introduction.
After a rocky week, environmentalists saw the horrible events in the Gulf as further evidence of the desperate need for major legislative action. The leak might even have been seen as a potential catalyst, allowing a seamless transition from financial regulatory reform to the energy and climate bill. Despite that, most talking heads have concluded that the leak has done the opposite: making legislative success even less likely. It's easy to see the rationale for this pessimism. In recent days, Democratic Senators Bill Nelson (FL), Bob Menendez (NJ), and Frank Lautenberg (NJ) announced their complete opposition to any further offshore drilling. Nelson even went as far as to suggest he would filibuster any bill expanding the controversial practice, saying, "Any proposal for offshore drilling is dead on arrival."
Given the consensus approach Graham, Kerry (D-MA), and Lieberman (I-CT) had taken and had hoped would pave the way to passage, a bloc of needed Democratic members opposing one of the provisions most likely to attract GOP votes is a major problem. On top of that, many have pointed out the crisis could be used by the president to advocate for the legislation and see President Obama's relative silence on the issue politically as evidence of his reticence to call for bold action. Though that analysis may end up being correct, we can't know that this soon. It is very possible President Obama is trying to take the classy road by not hijacking a national tragedy that saw eleven lives lost and a likely devastation of already-struggling coastal communities for political purposes before there's even time to mourn. It's also arguable that Americans want to see their government addressing the immediate problem first, by trying to collect and disperse the leaked oil, cap and stanch the leak itself, and offset the damage to the affected communities, which is what they've been doing. Such action does not preclude future use of the crisis as a "teachable moment" once the immediate disaster has subsided somewhat.
Matt Ygelsias also offers a better source onto which enviro-anger can be focused:
"In some ways the larger issue here is the continued loyalty to Big Oil of Gulf Coast politicians like Mary Landrieu who’s trying to leverage this disaster into bolstering support for more drilling. The point of the Obama administration going soft on drilling in the first place was that the iron math of the Senate makes it impossible to do anything without the support of the Landrieus (”Landrieux”?) of the world. And if the politicians’ whose states are going to be devastated by this are responding by hewing even more tightly to the Big Oil line, then the situation is just hopeless."
All that said, as the consummate optimist, I am not yet willing to write the obituary for Kerry-Graham-Lieberman. Giving me cause for continued hope are statements from some key members of the upper chamber. In the same breath as his statement of opposition to offshore drilling, Menendez took the opportunity to say the leak “should be an impetus for the Senate to act on climate and energy, rather than a barrier.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) added, "I think it should spur us on. Alternative energy is what we need to do as rapidly as we can, so I think rather than slow us up, I think it should expedite our doing energy legislation.”
Even more than that, experience tells me two things: that members of Congress are suprisingly fickle and often change their minds rather quickly, and that few things will stand in the way of Barack Obama when he's committed to getting something done. Accordingly to his last statements, President Obama is dedicated to tackling the energy and climate crisis this year. Until he changes that tune, I will remain cautiously optimistic.
As of today, Senator John Kerry has committed to moving forward on the bill and confirmed that it will be rolled out early next week.
"I know what the conventional wisdom is out there," Kerry said, "that with all the election-year jitters, a looming Supreme Court confirmation and a difficult legislative schedule, that Congress is going to avoid tough choices as November nears. But I believe this is the year – perhaps our last, best chance – to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation."
Let's get to work.
