Stormy Weather Ahead

Despite a Republican boycott of the proceedings, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer approved climate change legislation today. If you think the healthcare debate was contentious, you ain't seen nothing yet. This battle promises to be far uglier. Brace yourselves for stormy weather.

Eleven of the 12 Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to approve the measure. Only Senator Max Baucus from coal-rich Montana voted against the bill. None of the seven Republicans who sit on the committee were present for the vote because of an effort to derail the legislation tactically. The legislation had been tied up in the committee by the Republicans, led by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who said the bill’s impact on the economy hadn’t been adequately studied. They boycotted most of the panel’s meetings this week to try to prevent a vote until the Environmental Protection Agency reviews the bill further. Such stalling tactics speak to the character of the GOP. As Senator Boxer noted, "The Senate can’t be paralyzed."

From Politico:

With Republican boycotting the proceedings, Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) relied on a little used interpretation of committee rules to move the legislation. Traditionally, two minority members are required to conduct committee business.

Boxer said that she passed the bill "in full accordance with long-standing committee and Senate rules."

"This is not a procedure we wanted; it's a procedure that's available to us," said Boxer. "The majority has to be able to do its work...otherwise the whole Senate could come to a screeching halt."

Republicans called Boxer's move the "nuclear option," warning that it violated decades of committee precedent.

"I am here to appeal to you and the members of the committee," Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the committee, said in a brief statement. "In the history of this committee, we have not been able to find a time when the bill has been marked up without minority."

A Republican committee member visited the committee daily this week to deliver a short statement laying out GOP objections to the process.

Top Republican committee leaders and several moderate members -- including climate bill leader South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham -- have sent letters this week in support of the boycott.

Eleven Democrats voted for the bill, enough to give the legislation a majority of the 19 members on the committee.

Montana Sen. Max Baucus was the only Democratic to vote against the bill, citing concerns about the agriculture provisions included in the legislation.

But Baucus vowed to use his post as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to pass a climate bill.

The boycotting of proceedings in order to bring the Senate and the business of the people "to a screeching halt" is the last option available to the GOP. They will destroy the country if need be in order to get their way which is to do nothing at all. The only thing James Inhofe cares about is the energy industry's profits. This is a man who believes that global climate change is "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." The GOP will stop at nothing to derail any climate legislation going forward and we should be prepared for such.

The problem we face is that given Senate rules, a few Republican votes will be required to pass climate legislation because at least a few Democrats have reservations. Both Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have said they are opposed to cap-and-trade. And both Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia are concerned that cap-and-trade legislation will hurt their coal-dependent states and won’t support the measure in its current form.



Display:


Re: Stormy Weather Ahead (2.00 / 2)

I am very pleased to see Boxer doing what it takes to move this bill forward despite the Republican showboating.  On the whole, the Democrats have allowed a rump minority to obstruct the business of the Senate way, way too much.  Does anyone know how many of Obama's judicial nominees have gotten a floor vote?

I'd like to know how many of the Republicans who are whining about "oh no, this is the nuclear option, how dare you," were 100% in favor of invoking their own nuclear option back when they were in the majority.  The Democrats don't have to be bullies but they don't have to put up with obstruction either.  The American people gave the Democrats a majority because they wanted the Democrats to do something.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:22:01 PM EST

Re: Stormy Weather Ahead (none / 0)

This is not a nuclear option, committee votes don't need cloture.


by vecky on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:14:48 PM EST

Re: Stormy Weather Ahead (none / 0)

Sorry to be nit-picky...... but you did put too very contradictory sentences back to back. <quote> The only thing James Inhofe cares about is the energy industry's profits. This is a man who believes that global climate change is "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."</quote> I'd say anyone who believes that GW is "a great hoax" can't be said to be only caring about profits when he opposes relatively expensive bills that are being "suckered" into existence, to none benefit, by such a hoax. If thats the case (and I'm not saying it is, he could be a shill) you can't say it's all about profits. Just to make clear. I am y no means am saying it is a hoax, of course it isn't. The evidence is overwhelming, and hell yes we should be doing something about it (something stronger than the current bills I've read about). Nor that either of the two statements about Inhofe's beleif's/motivations are untrue in isolation. But it's very unlikely that they are both literally true. If he genuinely believes it's a hoax, he's almost certainly not doing it to protect anyones profits so much as to protect US taxpayers. If he's genuinely doing it to defend peoples profits as a primary motivation, he must not believe that it is a huge expensive hoax. Just saying. I feel I should apologise again about the pedantry. But one of those sentences has got to give. Yours, TGP
by TheGreasyPole on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:59:02 PM EST

Re: Stormy Weather Ahead (none / 0)

Sorry about the post formatting. Screwed that up.


by TheGreasyPole on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:59:39 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.