Climate Bill Faces Political Challenges From Both Parties in the Senate

Posted by Steven Zweig on November 2, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson is one of several Democrats skeptical of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. (image: cbsnews.com)

Question: When does a majority not guarantee winning the vote?

Answer: When it’s a Democratic majority in the Senate, and the vote is on the climate bill.

As the Washington Post reports Monday, despite a Democratic majority in the Senate, there are doubts about their ability to pass a climate bill.

Democrats are divided along regional fault lines. Senators from states dependent on coal for energy or their economy (i.e., states that produce coal, or states that burn it for power) are hesitant to embrace a bill that could substantially increase costs or decrease revenue for their constituents.

As Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) put it: “I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the [light] switch on at home will be disadvantaged.” That is as definitive a statement of concern, if not outright opposition, as you are likely to hear from a Democrat about one of his own party’s core legislative initiatives. Nelson made the comment in the context of explaining why he does not believe the Kerry–Boxer bill will pass.

Senator Nelson is not alone in worrying about this bill’s impact. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) wants less ambitious carbon-reduction targets and said, “[t]he legislation before us is about our economy,” making clear that, like Nelson, he is concerned about his constituents’ pocketbooks. Despite being from a state with a small population, Baucus has loomed large this year, owing to his central role in the health care debates. For a key administration ally like Baucus to express deep reservations about the climate bill illustrates the depth of the Democratic divide.

This is why the bill’s Democratic sponsors are trying to reach across the aisle for Republican support. Without being able to guarantee their own party’s support, Senate Democratic leaders are looking for at least a half dozen Republicans to break party ranks and help pass the bill.

However, Republican opposition to the bill is widespread. Even Republicans who had been counted as potential supporters are backing away. For example, Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH) had been seen as reasonably likely to vote for the climate bill. Last week though, during Senate hearings on the bill, he said “Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now? Wouldn’t it be smarter to take our time and do it right?”

The problem for the administration and its Congressional allies is that time is not on their side. The head of the United Nation’s climate change team has said that the imminent—December—climate negotiations in Copenhagen will not be successful without significant US leadership, meaning the passage of climate change legislation by the US Congress. The entire fabric of the international fight against global warming is being cast as subject to unraveling if the United States does not pass some sort of carbon cap bill.

Given the perceived urgency of passing climate legislation before Copenhagen, Democrats are willing to play “Let’s Make a Deal” with Republicans. Nuclear power has been placed on the table, as quid pro quo for support of the climate bill. A number of influential Republicans, such as Senators Voinovich, John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Lamar Alexander (TN), and Johnny Isakson (GA) support nuclear power. Leading Democrats are willing to exchange their support for nuclear energy in exchange for Republican support for carbon trading and emissions caps.

As Senator Graham said, in advance of a meeting this Wednesday with climate bill sponsor Sen. Kerry, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and administration climate advisor Carol Browner:

“There is nowhere near 60 votes for a nuclear power bill on its own. There’s not 60 votes for a cap-and-trade bill as it’s currently constructed…[combining the two bills is] the only way you’ll get 60 votes.”

As with health care legislation, the urgency to pass something this term is causing the administration’s supporters to engage in old-fashioned Congressional horse trading, what the Sierra Club’s Executive Director called “the old formula for bipartisanship.” That is less the careful development of a solution that melds both sides’ concerns, and more a Chinese-menu approach of “one from column A, one from column B,” in which disparate elements are stitched together into a bill that can, hopefully, muster votes enough to pass.

However, the divide on climate legislation may be too deep to easily bridge. State lawmakers see an intractable gap at their level. Minnesota state Representative Jeremy Kalin said, “We looked for any Republican, in any state legislature in the country, who supported a [climate] bill. We found not a one.”

That deep division augurs ill for near-term passage of a good climate bill. It may be that no bill can be passed, which will put in danger other agendas, like Copenhagen, built around US climate legislation. Or it may be that a bill will be passed, but it will not be a good one.