TPMDC
« Dems Bringing Web Ad Against House Republicans' "Budget" To TV | Home | Republicans: We Don't Want Reconciliation...Or Cap-and-Trade »

Pelosi: Climate Legislation by July (We Hope)

Following up on Elana's post about the Waxman-Markey legislation, I just got off a conference call with Ed Markey himself and Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the climate change process. The goal, Pelosi said, was to have the bill passed by July--but she conceded that the goal, and the separate task of bringing Republicans aboard, will be a challenge.

The plan the Democrats put forward is pretty ambitious, at least by the standards of the U.S. Congress, but that means much less coming from the House than it would from the Senate, which is the real choke point for all of this stuff. One way around that roadblock is, famously, the reconciliation process. But the authors of this legislation--no wilting violets, they--signed on to a letter to President Obama saying, "using the budget reconciliation process, which curtails Senate filibuster rights, could arouse regional distrust and make reaching agreement harder."

The letter can be viewed in full here, but the takeaway is that reconciliation isn't a likely route for this bill. But congressional Democrats have another point of leverage--specifically, they can pressure carbon regulation opponents to sign on to the bill (however reluctantly) to circumvent the White House, which, thanks to a 2007 court decision, has the power, through the EPA, to regulate carbon on its own.

I asked the Speaker and Rep. Markey about this, and they agreed--the Supreme Court's decision makes carbon regulation inevitable. "Members will want Congress to [act]," Markey said. But he added that he's not in contact with the EPA about setting any sort of deadline for congressional action before handing the issue over to regulators.

"On an issue of this magnitude...it's very important that other countries understand that this is the law of the land," Pelosi said.

Markey added that "trade exposed industries can not be protected by regulation," a sign, perhaps that legislators from manufacturing states will ultimately be convinced to help pass a bill whether they want to or not.

But, one reporter asked, will the vote on the House's climate change bill be as partisan as the stimulus was? It remains to be seen, of course, but based on her observation of GOP opposition to the budget process Pelosi didn't rule it out: "They were not values based, intellectually driven about our future."


4 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Ummm.....how come using budget reconciliation didn't "arouse regional distrust" when the R's were using it to pass THEIR legislation?

user-pic

I am skeptical too, but I think Henry Waxman has earned progressives' trust. They can always go back to reconciliation if the Republicans prove obdurate (as they usually do).

user-pic

Oh, I agree. Speak softly but carry a big stick. The threat of using the big stick is often more powerful than the stick itself. I was just musing on the hypocrisy here and how they're not even trying not to be blatant about it.

user-pic

A cap and trade bill which includes allocation of some of the proceeds from auction to help the coal industry and its customers (for example) make a transition to other forms of electric power generation is the only hope these special interests have of getting tossed a bone. In reality, Obama and the EPA can, at any time, impose emissions regulations on coal burning plants (and any other emitter of CO2 and other pollutants) that will make their costs escalate to a point where they cannot compete in the market. Coal is the best example, because it is by far the greates contributer to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plus a myriad of health problems. Recent studies show very strong correlations, for example, between rates of autism and residence in proximity to the emissions from coal burning power plants.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the EPA, under existing law, can regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Obama and the EPA are giving the congress an opportunity to set regulatory standards, including a transition away from these pollutants via a cap and trade program. Failing adoption of such standards within a reasonable time frame, the administration is free and willing to act on its own. I would prefer a broader consensus, but I do not wish to tolerate obstruction, nor do I believe the American public at large has much opposition to moving forward.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address