Weekly Political Roundup – Kicking the Can?
Posted February 5, 2010 at 8:01 am 
Filed in:
The push continues by a growing number of bipartisan Senators to bring the Senate Energy and Natural Resources energy-only bill brought to the floor then possibly attack carbon emissions at a later time. The President, in a town hall meeting this week in New Hampshire, even acknowledged this possible path saying “The only thing I would say about it is this: We may be able to separate these things out, and it’s conceivable that that’s where the Senate ends up.” Also this week, the President met with a group of Governors to discuss energy policy and he stated: “Now, there’s no reason that we shouldn’t be able to work together in a bipartisan way to get this done. I know that there is some concern about how energy fits together with climate change. I happen to believe that climate change is one of the reasons why we’ve got to pursue a clean energy agenda, but it’s not the only reason. So even if you don’t believe in the severity of climate change, as I do, you still should want to pursue this agenda. It’s good for our national security and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It’s good for our economy because it will produce jobs.”
Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a key leader with Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in trying to create a comprehensive bipartisan climate and energy bill, called the splitting of the two issues a “kick the can down the road” way to address the issues. He said, “It’s putting off to another Congress what really needs to be done comprehensively. I don’t think you’ll ever have energy independence the way I want until you start dealing with carbon pollution and pricing carbon. The two are interconnected.” He further stated that, “If the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill and say that’s moving the ball down the road, forget it with me.”
The greater issue will be how to rectify the two competing view points. On the one hand, an energy only bill could be the first major bipartisan legislation to pass the Senate. While not perfect, the bill does contain measures both sides of the aisle like as well as measures both sides of the aisle don’t like. On the other hand, the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman bill, which many are anxiously waiting to see, could find the right balance between energy and climate. The Senators have been meeting with lawmakers, the White House and interest groups and are working to craft something that will be ready for the floor this spring. If they are indeed able to compose legislation with enough support from both sides of the aisle, they might just be able to get it done and also provide a major bipartisan win in the Senate.
Senator Graham summarized their approach nicely, “We’ve done things on the energy side, we’ve got some buy-in from people on the left and the middle that I never dreamed of. I just hope we don’t blow it. And from a Republican point of view, you’ve got the best chance you’ll ever have to get meaningful energy independence. From the Democratic left point of view, you’ve got the best chance you’ll ever have to have carbon pollution controls. Don’t let it pass.”
What matters most from the energy security standpoint is that in either scenario, energy security is a key issue to address. Neither side disagrees that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Neither side believes we are on the right track in meeting and sustaining our nation’s energy needs. They just differ in approaches to doing so and it is hopeful that regardless of which bill is ultimately brought to the floor, energy security will be addressed in a meaningful way in the upcoming months.
