Senate Procedures and Climate Change

02Apr09

It’s really quite disheartening to read something like this:

Prospects for using the Congress’s budget process to pass cap-and-trade legislation were extinguished on Wednesday night as the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of a measure to bar that option.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), prohibits the “use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system”—Congress-speak for “you can’t attach cap-and-trade to the budget bill.” The amendment passed by a vote of 67-31, with 26 Democrats voting for the provision.

Johanns and his allies were critical of the idea of passing major legislation outside of normal Senate procedure, which requires 60 votes end debate on a bill; the budget process requires only simple majority votes, taking away the filibuster option and making it possible to pass a cap-and-trade measure without any Republican support (Democrats hold 58 of the Senate’s 100 seats).

Democrats who voted with Johanns were: Max Baucus (Mont.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

First you have the weirdness of making the filibuster essentially a constant feature of the Senate process. In and of itself it’s depressing that this behavior isn’t considered beyond the pale. But you’d imagine that Democrats, even the most conservative Democrats, would become fairly hostile to the tactic. I mean even their carefully designed moderate and measured plans are subject to the same obstructionism as Ted Kennedy or anyone else. You’d think it would piss them off.

And maybe it does, but not enough to support moving climate change legislation through the budget reconciliation process and avoiding the threat of filibuster. There seems to be two rationales for not moving climate change through the budget reconciliation process. The first is that the regular Senate process is superior, which in the case is absurd. In some cases a longer and more formal debate is advantageous, but we’re talking about an issue we spent that last 8 years delaying urgently needed action. Second reason is that using the budget reconciliation process would force you to leave out parts of the bill. That’s a much better reason, but obviously writing the bill so that it can survive a filibuster creates the exact same risks.

This is an issue where a careful eye is useful. It’s possible that the majority of these Senators are acting in good faith and just want a good comprehensive bill. But it’s more likely they want the bill to be weaken, or just don’t place a high priority on climate change legislation. We can’t let them play the good cop telling us how the bad cop wants to gut the bill even more.

Filed under: Energy Policy, Politics   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: Climate Change, Energy Policy, filibuster, Global Warming, Senate, Waxman-Markey