The bill (S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act) did not enjoy bipartisan support, in fact the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) boycotted the committee action, and Democrat Max Baucus of Montana did not support the measure, but still, the EPW Committee Democrats voted 11-1 to approve what has become known as the Boxer-Kerry climate change bill.Jim Snyder reports for The Hill, a Capital Hill newspaper, that Baucus went against his party over concerns that the bill’s “timetable for emissions reductions was too aggressive [.]” Baucus did pledge to work with the bill’s supporters to come up with legislation that can pass the 60-vote threshold needed in the Senate to end debate on a bill and move to a floor vote.
Indeed, Baucus is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of five committees that has some jurisdiction over the bill. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction for determining “how valuable emissions allowances will be distributed.” In addition to other committee work, the bill will likely face several amendment votes before it can move to final passage.
According to Snyder’s article, Republicans protested the bill’s markup and delayed the vote on the bill for two days because they wanted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “to perform a more thorough cost analysis of the bill [.]” The EPA had already performed a cost analysis study of the bill and told the committee it would take five weeks to conduct another study. Democrats countered that since the bill will likely change from other committees’ actions the current analysis would be sufficient while the changes are being made. The current analysis, according to The Hill, projects “a relatively modest impact for consumers.”
Still, EPW Ranking Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement, “I am deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer’s decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee . . . Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer . . . Her actions signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill.”
EPW Chair Barbara Boxer (CA) made this statement about the bill: “A majority of the committee believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean-energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment.”
While the bill is certainly not dead, the road for getting a bill out of Congress and onto the President’s desk is rocky. Both “rust belt” Senate Democrats, as well as Senate Democrats from rural, agrarian states have made public their concerns that any legislation must not put American businesses and farmers at a disadvantage against their foreign counterparts located in developing nations that do not have climate change laws as strict as the potential US law.
Further, whatever bill, if any, does come out of the Senate, their will have to be a compromise reached with the House bill for a conference measure that can win approval from both bodies. As anyone who is following the current debate on the Hill over health care legislation can attest, this can be a timely, highly political process.
One key issue to settle is the amount of reduction sought in greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate bill goes further than the House bill, calling for a 20 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.
This is probably not what the administration wants to hear or is hoping for. With the upcoming conference in early December in Copenhagen, Demark with other nations to discuss climate change, the administration had hoped to have a bill passed to use as leverage when negotiating on any global climate change treaty that might be reached by the attending nations. Without a bill, the administration is likely to send an envoy, rather than the President himself, that will only be able to point to principals that will likely be part of any US law.
The administration also wants a bill passed so they don’t repeat the 1998 experience of the Clinton administration when a foreign envoy from the US agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, only to have the Senate respond by passing a resolution essentially telling the administration that the Senate would not approve of the treaty.
Then Senate gets to approve of international treaties thanks to a little provision the founders put into the US Constitution—Article II, § 2 that reads, regarding the powers of the presidency, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur [.]” (U.S. Const. art II, § 2).
Whatever does happen with this bill and in Copenhagen, the climate change legislative battle will certainly be worth paying attention to.
To read Sen. James Inhofe’s statement please click here.
To read Jim Snyder’s article in The Hill click here.
To read a copy of the legislation S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, click here.
For much more on climate change policy and law in the United States please visit the Climate Change Reading Room on the National Agricultural Law Center’s website by clicking here.
For much more on climate change policy and law in the United States please visit the Climate Change Reading Room on the National Agricultural Law Center’s website by clicking here.
Posted: 11/06/09
