Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA)--chairs of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Environment and Public Works Committee respectively--have unveiled a draft of a climate change bill calling for significant reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in both the near and short term. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.
Though the draft will change considerably over the coming weeks, it is the basis for the upper chamber's coming legislative push, which, if successful, will, when combined with an already-completed House climate bill, become the most significant piece of energy legislation in the nation's history.
But between now and then, it will meet the many machetes of the Senate--an institution that hasn't been too kind to previous, failed climate change bills.
First, it will be changed a bit and then re-unveiled as a Chairman's Mark next month, ahead of hearings to amend it in Boxer's committee. That committee successfully passed a climate change bill, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, in 2007, and with more Democrats and fewer Republicans this time around, it should pass.
But, as is common in the Senate, it won't be a cakewalk. The ranking Democrat on the EPW Committee is Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) who, in his capacity as chairman of the much more conservative and rural Finance Committee, will likely get to take whack at the financing provisions of the bill.
Among those Finance Committee members are Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)--respectively chairs of the Agriculture Committee and Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Those panels, too, could be able to amend the bill.
When that's all done, and the whole thing's stitched back together, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can bring it to the floor. He's suggested that this may not happen until next year, but whenever it happens, expect a punishing debate and votes on amendments, which will culminate in a filibuster. If it can muster 60 votes to overcome that, then it may be in the clear. Bloodied and battered, but alive. But that's hardly a safe bet
On the bright side, James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

trblmkr
September 30, 2009 12:04 PM
Like lambs to the slaughter, another bill to be decimated at the altar of corporate "free speech($$$)", with Baucus, Lincoln, Conrad, Bingaman holding the knives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 30, 2009 12:21 PM
Coal mining is big in Montana. But if a climate change bill cut demand for coal by a big percentage, Montana and Wyoming would be the big winners and the Appalachian coal industry would take most of the hit.
In Wyoming and Montana, you scrape away a few feet of dirt on a flat plain and you hit truly gigantic seams, ten, twenty thirty feet thick--of coal that's as close to pure carbon--very minimal sulfur and heavy metal contaminants that have to be expensively scrubbed--as bituminous coal can be. In West Virginia and East Kentucky you blow the shit out of a mountain to hit a seam of coal that may be two or three feet thick and that's got a lot more sulfur and mercury in it."
Between the higher production costs and lower quality, the only reason the Appalachian coal industry is still in business is because the demand pie is big enough for everybody to have a slice. Tougher CO2 caps would put the competition out of business, but would leave the Wyoming and Montana business effectively untouched.
Unfortunately, the people who own the coal in Wyoming and Montana seem to be more dedicated to their ideologies than their profits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Campesino
September 30, 2009 1:15 PM
What's next is cap and trade ditched for a national renewables portfolio standard. No 60 votes for cap and trade
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
September 30, 2009 1:59 PM
I can see wanting a big tent party but do the Dems need to have the most reactionary assholes in leadership positions? They come from states where nobody lives and are bought off in a heart beat. The Senate is un-democratic enough without letting little shit hole states dictate important policy directions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 30, 2009 2:57 PM
How is it that Baucus is always the first in line to take a dump on high priority (to real Democrats) legislation? If you want to know "what's next", see the timeline on HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Woodward
September 30, 2009 4:22 PM
"Clean Coal" "Safe Nuclear" "Compassionate Conservative"
Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
September 30, 2009 4:33 PM
This isn't like Health Care. WHATEVER we can get passed is better than the status quo. Mainly because the status quo is the end of the earth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 30, 2009 5:13 PM
Okay, a little OT, but a) how does Kerry's committee have jurisdiction and, b) am I the only one who gets thinks the pictures look like Kerry just shared and off-color joke with Boxer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?