Overplaying a hand on global warming?
Posted March 13, 2009 at 4:15 am 
Filed in: The trade press in Washington has been abuzz lately about the climate change legislative strategy reportedly being pursued by some in the Obama Administration. With the House of Representatives firmly in Democratic hands, and the Senate somewhat narrowly so, the threat of a Repubican Senate filibuster is viewed by some as all that stands in the way of a “progressive” victory on climate legislation. And overcoming a filibuster doesn’t mean the majority rules; it means you need 60 votes to cut off debate and pass the bill. Gosh, if only there was a way around that unfair filibuster!
Into that scenario steps the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget, and its assumption of new ($600 billion+) revenues from government auctions of permits to emit greenhouse gases — the bedrock of a cap and trade approach to addressing climate change. As candidate Obama (as well as candidate McCain, for that matter) was very upfront about supporting climate change legislation, it would have been surprising if his multi-year budget blueprint didn’t project revenues from a government price on carbon dioxide emissions. Nonetheless, inclusion of the revenues in the budget proposal opens the door for a strategy based on congressional rules that are as widely talked about as they are misunderstood: budget reconciliation.
To oversimplify, budget reconciliation was invented by budget deficit hawks to enable the Senate to take tough decisions on taxes and spending without needing 60 votes to do so. Revenue measures contained in a budget reconciliation measure are not subject to filibuster and need only 51 votes to pass the Senate. So, goes the reasoning, if somehow climate change legislation can be crammed into budget reconciliation, then proponents need only 51 votes.
Folks who understand the rules, however, know that a provision called the “Byrd rule” effectively limits the “filibuster-proof” nature of reconciliation to measures that directly raise revenues or cut spending. Extraneous matters (in the climate context, things like a cap on emissions, rules for offsets, technology R&D programs, little things like that) are subject to a point of order and are stricken from the bill — if the presiding officer and parlimentarian so rule. The only way to keep the provisions in the bill is to waive the Byrd rule on a vote that requires, yes, 60 Senators in favor. Unless of course the presiding officer guts the Byrd rule.
Not suprisingly, the author of the Byrd rule — long-serving Senator Robert Byrd from coal-heavy West Virginia – is not too happy about the prospect of fundamentally reorganizing the nation’s energy system on the back of a budget measure. He and new Nebraska Republican Senator Mike Johanns have teamed up with 26 of their colleagues to fire a shot across the leadership’s bow on this issue. Lets give these Senators the last word, as reported yesterday by E&E:
“Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy,” the senators wrote. “Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow. Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
Previous Post
February 3, 2012
January 30, 2012
January 29, 2012
