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.
By: Jordan Young
Welcome to our third and final piece in the Financial Reform 101 series. If you've actually taken the time to read the first two pieces (on the crisis and the Senate bills), you probably deserve some sort of medal as they were quite long. As a reward, I'm going to try to explain the process for passing financial regulatory reform legislation through Congress as concisely as possible.
To recap our progress so far, let's take a look at the work already completed in the House and in committee.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chair of the House Committee on Financial Services passed a piece of legislation fairly similar to the Dodd bill on a party-line vote in December of last year. And as the political world focused its attention on the Senate's health care reform floor debate, the full House passed the Frank bill on December 11.
In the Senate, the two committees with jurisdiction, Chris Dodd's Banking Committee and Blanche Lincoln's Agriculture Committee, both passed their legislation earlier this year. Banking worked on their language for months, with Dodd splitting the committee members into bipartisan teams of two to tackle sections of the bill. At the end of the day, none of the committee's Republicans were willing to support the bill, but Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) emerged as point people who expressed willingness to continue to work toward a bipartisan deal. On March 22, Banking passed the Dodd bill without any Republican amendments being offered. Ag passed its derivatives regulations language just last week with a single Republican supporter, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
As of last night, the standoff between the parties has finally broken and the Senate unanimously agreed to begin debating the Dodd bill.
So where do we go from here?
From this point, debate is likely to last about two weeks, followed by a final vote. While a full floor schedule hasn't been circulated yet, we do know that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intends to keep the amendment process open, which means anyone can offer amendments to the legislation. Unlike health care reform, where Republicans used the floor process largely to offer unrealistic and 'gotcha' amendments, financial regulatory reform seems far more likely to attract numerous GOP votes.
Many of the Senators likely to support the final legislation, on both sides of the aisle, are legitimately desirous of an opportunity to amend the bill. In fact, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and six of the chamber's more liberal members have already expressed an intention to mount an aggressive offense to try to strengthen some of the bill's key provisions. Last night on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) committed to offering amendments addressing future bailouts and ratings agencies and revealed that Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) will offer amendments to audit the Federal Reserve and fully implement the Volcker Rule, respectively.
Once the Senate has finished debate, the bill will likely have to overcome another filibuster and will then see final passage. Once this has been accomplished, the House and Senate will convene a Conference Committee to iron out the differences between their respective bills. Rep. Frank had promised this exercise would be "spirited" at a time when many were unsure how strong the Senate's language would be. It now seems clearer that Senate Democrats are willing to play hardball to keep their bill strong, so Conference may be a smoother process than was originally assumed.
The final combined legislation, known as the conference report, will be sent back to both houses for final passage and then submitted to President Obama for signature. At this point, it is entirely possible, though admittedly optimistic, that financial regulatory reform may be the law of the land sometime near the end of May.
There, that was relatively short and painless, right?
By: Jordan Young
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made waves today after laying out the Senate's schedule for the next seven weeks. His statement that comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) would not be a top floor priority for this work period was pounced on by many in the media, who portrayed it as a flip-flop from his declarative statements over the weekend to a crowd of reform supporters. "We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," Reid said. "We need to do this this year. We cannot wait."
Media outlets seemed taken aback today when Reid said, "We won't get to immigration reform this work period." The New York Times called it a retreat. Talking Points Memo said Reid had "dashed [reformers] hopes."
This meme seems a bit dramatic to me. Reid's first statement was certainly breaking news. He endorsed tackling CIR this year, which was far from a certainty before. He promised to be working on it as soon as Congress returned from break, which they are. Chuck Schumer is still working on drafting the legislation, so, realistically, "working on" here means moving the bill forward toward the goal of passage later this year. It certainly didn't mean that Reid had a pre-written bill in his back pocket the Senate was going to vote on this week. And I don't really think CIR supporters thought it did mean that, so to say their hopes have been dashed seems a bit insulting to serious reformers' intelligence.
Reid's statement today was specifically about the Senate's legislative calendar for the next work period, meaning the period between now and the next recess in about seven weeks. The idea that CIR wasn't going to make it to the floor inside of seven weeks isn't really shocking news. It doesn't mean CIR is off the table. Reid's spokesman also said today, "Once a bill is drafted, we hope to get it on the floor as quickly as possible.”
Now, all of that said, the bigger news here is the calendar itself. Reid made clear that the priorities for this work period are financial regulatory reform, food safety regulations, energy and climate legislation, and post-Citizens United corporate-campaign reform. You can also tack onto the schedule for this year an overhaul on No Child Left Behind, which is up for consideration this summer, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Medicare SGR Fix, a long-term extenders bill, ratification of the new START treaty, the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice, and, oh yeah, an ELECTION.
Reid's commitment to passing CIR during this Congress may or may not be realistic given this long list of priorities. Truthfully, it is difficult, though not impossible, to see the Senate getting all of these things done, even a fraction would be impressive. The number of check marks we could place on the progressive agenda would be staggering.
At any rate, this is shaping up to be a very interesting year to be in politics.
UPDATE -- The Immigration Policy Center has spoken to Reid's office and insists that there was no backsliding. His "staff has assured us that he intends to take on CIR in 2010.”
