TPMDC
Climate Bill Passes Senate Committee Amid GOP Boycott, Baucus Opposition
Brian Beutler | November 5, 2009, 9:58AM
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the planet Earth
Share
Send to a friend!
A major climate change bill passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee amid a Republican boycott this morning, setting the stage for other panels to amend the legislation. The final vote was 11-1. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)--whose Senate Finance Committee probably have its own crack at the bill--was the lone hold out. No Republicans showed up to vote.
Baucus says he wants near-term emissions targets softened, and to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from stepping in to regulate carbon emissions on its own, pursuant to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling.
After the vote, ranking member James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Fox News and, in predictable fashion, lambasted the legislation, calling the committee's actions "unprecedented." He also claimed that the bill is "dead."
Chair Barbara Boxer wasn't nearly so glum.
"We found, after questioning the EPA extensively, that the Republicans' demand for another EPA analysis now would be duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars," Boxer said.
The absence of the Republicans during the EPA's presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one....We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.
Editor's note: This post originally had the vote as 10 to 1, with Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) not present. But Carper did show up, although late, and voted to pass the bill out of committee, making the vote 11 to 1. The post has been updated.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- The Public Option Dead End
- Al Gore: I'll "Outcrazy the Crazy"
- Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
- What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote
- Bachmann: 'I Don't Understand Why The Democratic Party Would Be Opposed To Me'
- Poll: Health Care Bill Could Hurt Dems -- And Not Passing It Would Be Worse
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Loses Patience in CBS5 Interview
- Coburn: I Acted As Ensign-Hampton Go-Between
- Obama Announces Programs to Boost Math and Science Education
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- November 22
- I Call Bullshit.
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Steele: 'Moderate Democrats Sacrificed Their Principles'
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- Intel Inside? Prove It.
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Filibuster Thwarted ... For Now
- I Call Bullshit.
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Establishment Reality
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- The Cast Has Assembled
- Bernie Sanders: I Want My Leverage!
- Clinton Not Attending Health Care Event Because it's Politicized?
- Time to contact the FCC
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
shooter242
November 5, 2009 10:02 AM
Middle Class tax increases are on the way.
Keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 5, 2009 10:29 AM in reply to shooter242
If by "Middle Class" you mean the 2% percent of US Businesses that produce 75% of America’s carbon pollution, then yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 5, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to Dorn76
And businesses will just pass any cost down to the consumer. So it's a tax without being called a tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 5, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
I think you meant to say "Drill, Baby, Drill".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 5, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to Dorn76
Shorter Shooter: Much better to fry our grandchildren later than to tax us now!
Probably opposed spending tax money on levees too. Undoubtedly voted for people who opposed such wasteful government spending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
November 5, 2009 12:40 PM in reply to AJM
Shorter Shooter: Much better to fry our grandchildren later than to tax us now!
Might fry our children.
Or us.
I'm 43. If I live as long as my grandmother, who still is around, I'll be alive in 2060.
Luckily, most of our current senators and top Big Energy Executives will have passed away by then since they're much older. So they won't have to worry about it. Good for them. Bad for us.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 5, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
Honestly what's your solution? Just do nothing and hope that carbon emissions don't increase global warming?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greysells2
November 5, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to agio
And if they do, what is Plan B?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 5, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
"And businesses will just pass any cost down to the consumer."
Obviously. Because all prices are totally elastic and immune to the laws of supply and demand.
Cut the crap. For conservatives prices are inelastic when it comes to minimum wage, employers simply can't pass any costs through and the result is lost employment. Yet when it comes to ANYTHING that might tax the bottom line suddenly the price becomes as slippery as snot as 100% of costs slide right through to the consumer.
Can anyone else spell "stupid special pleading"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 5, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Right, because supply and demand is suddenly repealed anytime regulation is the subject. The fact is the cost of coping with pollution isn't new, merely externalized, and no one likes bearing their own costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 5, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to ericf
Bingo. Right out of Econ 101.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
November 5, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to shooter242
Your post = Epic fail on the facts. No surprise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 5, 2009 11:17 AM in reply to shooter242
For all the vaunted cant one hears about "free markets" from the Right, I notice that they are frequently the loudest to complain when one tries to let the Market solve a problem. Cap and trade is simply a mechanism make those who generate a nuisance (pollution) pay to clean it up. In the same way that part of a butcher's cost of doing business is to find somewhere to go with the offal, so too it should be part of pollution generator's cost of doing business to figure out some safe way to clean up the pollution. Do you call it a "tax" when we make a butcher refrain from dumping the pig blood down the sewer in front of his shop?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
November 5, 2009 11:32 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
Ahhh, the joys of being young and gullible. Mr. Mitty has it right. Even Obama said utility bills will "skyrocket".
Moreover what in the world makes you think any revenue generated will clean up anything? This will be just like cigarette taxes funding everything but what was expected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 5, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to shooter242
Wow, with 8 seconds of context, we should just pack up and go home. This argument is over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 5, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to shooter242
Fine, but this misses my point. Not every price increase is a "tax" increase. Surely you understand this, no?
It also seems that you misunderstand the nature of cap and trade. The idea is not that the government will collect money from this scheme and use it to pay for environmental remediation. The idea is that the corporations themselves will be forced to achieve their own remediation (just as your butcher is obliged to dispose of his own offals). This cost will become part of the polluter's own costs of doing business. Yes, this will result (at the very least in the sort term; possibly in the longer term) in a price increase, but only because the end user will actually be paying his own way, instead of socializing the costs by dumping his wastes on the public's lawn (as it were).
If one butcher in your neighborhood dumped the blood from his carcasses on your lawn, this would certainly make his meat prices lower than the competition because he would not be paying the same costs as the other butchers who were paying to have their wastes safely disposed. When the authorities stopped him from dumping in your yard, would you agree when your neighbors complained that the authorities were increasing their taxes by forcing the butcher to charge higher prices?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
November 5, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
If that's the case then let's see you regulate emissions directly rather than try to force behavior circuitously. But that won't fly, because you have to be overt about the taxation.
You can call it anything you want, but any there is no dividing line anymore over what constitutes a tax. In my book any money directed to Government that isn't voluntary is a tax. Anything else is semantics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 5, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to shooter242
Cap and trade was a conservative idea that worked for reducing acid rain. A carbon tax would be fine with most liberals, but cap and trade was an attempt at a compromise with conservatives. That thinking goes back to when conservatives still believed in compromise and solving problems. I hope DC Democrats will finally figure out those days are gone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 5, 2009 2:17 PM in reply to shooter242
Cap and trade does not divert money to government. The government will not be collecting any revenues from cap and trade. This is a market based solution. As I mentioned above, it is hard not to notice that for all of the lionizing of the Market that one hears from conservatives, they seem to have precious little confidence in it whenever a Democrat suggests that the Market might be able to help solve a problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
November 5, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
shooter doesn't understand why he's against carbon trading. he just mouths the words his puppetmasters give him.
republicans are the party of invisble hands and magic beans. all their talk about market-based solutions is just that. talk. they could give a rip about solutions or markets.
the republican party is all pathos. no ethos. no logos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 5, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to shooter242
I don't think you know anything about economics at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 5, 2009 6:46 PM in reply to shooter242
Residence in the United States is voluntary -- there are certain conditions attached -- submission to majority rule as filtered through democratic institutions is one. Pay your taxes like a good citizen or leave the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 5, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to shooter242
Hey shooter2, ol dog, your picture is worth the proverbial 1000 words. I can see that just like an old dog, your philosophy is to poop on everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nebton
November 6, 2009 9:49 AM in reply to rbe1
Not cool. I'll bet that dog is sweet. Leave him (or her) out of it. :P
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ash
November 5, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Well said, AMV. Since someone will have to pay for the cleanup eventually, progressives think that the businesses that make the mess should do it, whereas teabaggers would rather stick their fingers in their ears and sing "LA LA LA" really loud. I'm not sure why they don't get the competition thing: sure, one company might gouge consumers to pay for their own pollution, but a smart company will pollute less and offer better prices. But this simple logic escapes conservatives, because they all thrive on fear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
November 5, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to shooter242
Concern trolls. Yeah!
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
November 5, 2009 10:18 AM
Thanks Barbara for pushing this bill thru without cowering to the gamnes the GOP is playing still. Show Max a thing or thing or two on leadership!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 5, 2009 11:41 AM in reply to Obama1st
Amen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 5, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to Obama1st
Can we make Barbara Boxer the Majority Leader?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 5, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to Obama1st
Max can't be shown anything about leadership because Max is not trainable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 5, 2009 11:08 AM
Hey, Republicans, I think boycotting committee sessions is an excellent strategy. Please keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 5, 2009 11:41 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
I agree. Things would be much better if the Congressional Republicans went on strike. Here's hoping they continue to pout in the corner like 6 year-olds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotaGOP
November 5, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
Next step: get them to boycott floor votes. That will really show Obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
November 5, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Maybe they could all boycott everything and go teabag themselves... By which I mean each other, of course. Or both. They should go teabag themselves AND go teabag each other somewhere. In case my meaning wasn't clear...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
November 5, 2009 11:15 AM
That's my Senator!
What's the other's name again?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 5, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to johnmccsf
My senator too. The other's name is bitch!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 5, 2009 11:55 AM
Cue the GOP whining about how nefarious Democratic tactics excluded them from the decision-making process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
November 5, 2009 12:11 PM
This is what I'm talking about! If the child insist on touching the hot stove, it is the grownup's responsibility to prevent it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nebton
November 6, 2009 9:51 AM in reply to Beagle
I agree with your sentiment, but that's not a winning argument to those who complain about the nanny-state…
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
November 5, 2009 12:42 PM
Baucus and Lieberman both need to go
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greysells2
November 5, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to dannyluv
Together and where?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?