|
 |  Boston Globe -
Nov-04-2009EU urges US climate plan as GOP boycotts Senate panel vote(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
WASHINGTON: A key U.S. Senate committee forges ahead Tuesday with sweeping climate change legislation, as its backers nervously watch time run short before December's make-or-break global summit in Denmark. President Barack Obama's Democratic allies have split on the issue, with some worried about the possible impact on home-state industries, while his Republican foes have mostly united against the White House-backed approach. With uncertainty clouding the legislation's fate, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will open its critical debate on the plan at 9:00 am (1400 GMT) after last-ditch efforts to avert a threatened Republican boycott. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee, said late Monday she was holding out an olive branch to Republican colleagues who say they are unsatisfied with the Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the bill. "We really hope they will return to the table," said Boxer, who added she might take steps to move forward with or without Republicans but underlined that "we're going to be very, very patient." Boxer said she would invite EPA officials to appear and take any questions after the agency based its assessment on largely similar legislation that cleared the House of Representatives in June. [1] WASHINGTON — A key U.S. Senate committee crafting sweeping legislation to combat climate change will keep working with or without its Republican members, who have threatened a boycott, its chairwoman said Monday. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who leads the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, urged Republicans to attend a critical Tuesday hearing on the bill but warned their absence would not freeze progress on the measure. "We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this committee," she said in a statement. Republicans have said they plan to shun the meeting because they lack a full review of the legislation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office. "If Chairman Boxer would simply work with us to get a full economic analysis of her bill, we could move forward together," said Inhofe spokesman Matt Dempsey. They have also reportedly said that the committee's rules forbid Boxer from holding a work hearing on the legislation without at least two Republicans present, a claim challenged by Democrats. "She believes that Senate rules allow her to trample over the minority, notwithstanding committee rules requiring minority participation," said Dempsey.[2] The Environment and Public Works committee is engaged in public partisan warfare over a climate bill, a battle that foreshadows the deep struggle the Obama administration will face as Democrats attempt to push a version of the sweeping legislation through the Senate. Though all seven Republicans on the committee say they will boycott any mark-up hearing held next week, Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) announced that she will proceed with the hearing on Tuesday, even if Republicans don't attend." Republicans say that EPW rules prohibit Boxer from holding a mark-up without two Republicans present, but Democratic aides for Boxer and other members indicated that they had found a way around that rule. "The Senator is going to use all the tools at her disposal," said one Boxer aide. The boycott, led by the committee's two most moderate Republican members, Ohio Sen. George Voinovich and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, illustrates the difficulty for Democrats in getting significant bipartisan backing for their climate bill - even among Republican lawmakers who support taking action to combat climate change. "I'm willing to work with the people on the other side of the aisle but if you jam this thing through here, it's not going to be good," Voinovich said on Thursday. The Obama administration has largely failed to attract significant Republican backing for their major initiatives like health care and the economic stimulus package.[3]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats who control a key U.S. Senate panel said they would begin debating a climate change bill on Tuesday, despite a planned boycott by minority Republicans who are demanding more study of the issue. Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, wants to have a bill approved by her panel before an international summit on global warming convenes in Copenhagen in December.[4]
Sens. Barbara Boxer and George Voinovich at climate change meeting. The partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans over global warming legislation got even deeper today when lawmakers on both sides couldn't even agree on whether the Environmental Protection Agency has properly analyzed the bill proposed by the majority. After Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio ''made a cameo appearance at Sen. Barbara Boxer's markup to state the GOP position that the''EPA review of the House climate change''bill was not sufficient, Boxer said she would have an EPA official at the''Environment and Public Works''committee in the afternoon to answer senators'''questions. David McIntosh, a former aide to Sen. Joseph Lieberman and veteran of the climate change wars, came to the committee in his new role as''the EPA's associate administrator for legislative and intergovernmental affairs.''''[5] To view this video, please visit the non-mobile site with a Flash-enabled browser. Republicans on the Senate environment committee made good on their vow to boycott this morning's first meeting on climate change legislation, leaving Democrats to poke holes in the GOP's insistence on a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis of the bill. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) visited the environment panel this morning to read a statement (viewable above) calling for the EPA to take more time examining the climate bill's costs while using a more negative model than the agency used in its initial analysis of the legislation, released late last month.[6] Democrats outnumber Republicans 12 to 7. We will give them the opportunity, as we proceed this week, to reconsider their decision," she added. "We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this committee." On Monday afternoon, all six ranking Republicans on committees with jurisdiction over climate change legislation sent a letter to Boxer opnbrktPDFclsbrkt asking her to delay consideration of the bill until a full economic analysis is performed. Two of the GOP senators Democrats have been eyeing as possible backers of a cap-and-trade bill -- Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Richard Lugar (Ind.) both signed the missive, which states, these sort of "analyses are worth the time and resources not only to get them done, but to get them done right." "The EPW Republicans would like a markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill, but are disappointed that the majority seems intent on moving forward with a markup before receiving a full analysis from the EPA," he said.[7]
WASHINGTON -- Six ranking Republican U.S. senators Monday warned the head of the environment committee that pushing ahead with a vote on a landmark climate bill this week would "severely damage" the chances of passing the legislation. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) has said she's prepared to begin consideration of the climate bill Tuesday despite objections by GOP committee members who want a full economic analysis of the proposal. The six panel members said they would try to block passage of the bill through committee by not attending the scheduled markup.[8] Ranking GOP members of six Senate committees that are playing a part in crafting an overall bill to cut greenhouse gases said that an Environmental Protection Agency analysis was unsatisfactory, although supporters of the bill called it an exhaustive examination. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., co-sponsor of the climate bill, which is before her Environment and Public Works Committee, said she plans to press ahead with consideration of the measure on Tuesday, even as GOP panel members threatened to boycott the proceedings.[9] As you may have heard, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee kicked off an amendment process on a climate change bill sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today over the howls of the committee's Republican minority.[10] Despite a boycott by Republican leaders in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Democrats, led by Senator Barbara Boxer of California, have decided to forge ahead with climate change legislation.[11] The comments, made in a letter to senators currently considering climate change legislation in the Environment and Public Works Committee, comes after several high-profile departures by members from the Chamber. "This really is a game-changer," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), one of the chief authors of Senate climate legislation, after reading the letter. "For them to say. they stand ready to work with us, this is a tremendous signal."[12]
Not one Republican seems interested. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she will begin the mark up on climate legislation regardless of the fact that all 7 Republicans on the Committee plan to boycott the proceedings.[7] The top Republicans on six committees with jurisdiction over the Senate climate bill have sent a letter to Environment and Public Works committee Chairman Barbara Boxer urging her to back off of her decision to force the bill through the committee without Republican participation.[13] Barbara Boxer may not only force her climate bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee without any Republican votes; aides say she could also do it without any Republicans in the room at all. Boxer (D-Calif.) could exploit a loophole in committee rules that will allow her to approve the bill with a simple majority of the 12 Democrats on the committee, even if no Republicans are present.[14]
Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to proceed under a rarely used interpretation of the committee's rules that allows her to start and finish the markup so long as a majority of the panel's members are present, rather than longstanding precedent requiring two minority members to be in attendance, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill. Boxer's justification for the move is that Republicans are trying to stall on a climate bill that they have no intention of voting for anyway. With a 12-7 majority favoring Democrats, she does not need their support to report the bill favorably. "We believe that there's no reason for them to stay away," Boxer told reporters last week. "It'd be remarkably bad faith if they did." Republicans counter that they have no choice but to boycott the markup because they have not been given all of the information from U.S. EPA and the Congressional Budget Office that they need to understand the full economic implications of the legislation, let alone prepare amendments for committee action. Andrew Wheeler, a former EPW Committee Republican staff director, agreed that Boxer has the power to proceed with the markup absent Republicans' participation, though he warned against the precedent she could create. "The loophole is she's the one who decides the rules are being followed," he said.[15] The president and congressional leaders hope a show of progress will show the world the U.S. is taking climate change seriously. When Senator Barbara Boxer of California convened her environment committee to start voting on the 959-page climate bill she and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts had fashioned, she was faced with a Republican boycott. Only Senator George Voinovich of Ohio showed up and he stayed only for 15 minutes to demand a closer analysis of the bill's cost and impact on jobs.[16] "I have to finish reading the bill, and I have to find out what it costs before I write my amendments," said Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, an EPW committee member and the chairman of the Senate GOP conference. "The fact of the matter is, the complete analysis gives you a much better idea of what kind of amendments you ought to be working on," added Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who has placed a "hold" on Robert Perciasepe's confirmation to be EPA deputy administrator until he gets answers on the economic implications of the House-passed climate bill ( H.R. 2454 (pdf)) and its emerging Senate counterpart. EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is also preparing a Republican counter hearing for this week on the climate bill, though details have not yet been released. Boxer last week said she could take multiple days to finish work on the bill. "I honestly can't predict, but I do like to work long hours when I'm marking up," she said.[15] Republicans demanded a closer analysis of the bill's cost and impact on jobs. The Republicans for months have characterized the Democrats' effort on climate as the road to a massive energy tax because it would force a shift away from cheaper fossil fuels such as coal and raise electricity and other energy prices. "This is not a ruse to prevent this committee from marking up a climate bill," insisted Voinovich. "Rather this is a genuine attempt. to have the best information available as we debate and amend the bill that will have consequences for every person in the country." Voinovich's state of Ohio is especially vulnerable because of its reliance on coal and its manufacturing base. He said an analysis by the EPA cited by Boxer falls far short of what is needed. He said it was based on a House-passed bill that he said is significantly different from the bill before the Senate.[17] If the EPA were to go through that process, McIntosh told the Democrats, "you would see vanishingly small differences" between the House climate bill that passed in June -- which was given a full examination -- and the Senate's version, which nearly triples the House's investment in clean transportation. According to McIntosh, there is more paperwork available to the environment committee on the costs of this year's climate bill than there was in 2007, when Republicans allowed a similar cap-and-trade carbon emissions plan to proceed to consideration by the full Senate. "It is difficult to link the motivation to an amount of the analysis before the committee at this point in time," said McIntosh, a former adviser to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and his primary aide during the 2007 climate debate.[6] Republican Senator from Ohio, George Vionovich, came early morning to deliver an explanation speech for the boycott-style protest, claiming the no-show was not a ploy to halt the bill's progress. He told those present that the GOP wasn't satisfied with the EPA economic impact study that estimated a minimal cost of the bill, and they want more time to consider the widespread impact of the bill's passage. He then left. Although rules state that a least two members of the minority party must be present to approve the bill for a full senate vote, Boxer told reporters she plans to push the bill ahead anyway, exploiting a loophole that would allow approval with only a majority vote from the 12 Democrats present at the committee. Although she seems to be fighting fire with fire, aids and spokespeople say her freelancing will work against her. "It certainly will lead to long term ramifications in this committee, if that's the way she chooses to proceed", said Republican Committee spokesman, Matt Dempsey.[18] "I grew up in the inner city," said Boxer, who was raised in New York City. "''When you called somebody out you faced them down and told them why. They're calling out the EPA and are not willing to come and look them in the eye. It's not right." The Republicans scheduled a news conference''late in the afternoon to give their side of the EPA analysis debate. A few mintues'' after''the appointed time, a spokesman for''senior committee Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, came in and told us the ranking member was instead'' headed over to the committee''room because he heard Boxer was going to try to take action on the bill. Inhofe believes the committee rules prevent Boxer from''holding a debate on her bill. Boxer says she''can work on the bill and'' that Senate rules allow her to send it to the full''chamber with just Democratic votes.[5]
Under committee rules, at least two members of the minority are needed to vote on legislation. Ms. Boxer then indicated she may try to push the bill through committee without the Republicans: Senate rules allow bills to be approved in committee by a simple majority. "This bill has had comprehensive legislative hearings, with 54 expert witnesses in nine panels," Ms. Boxer said in a statement Monday. "No climate bill has ever had this level of review and the Obama Administration stands behind the EPA's analysis," she said. The ranking members of the six committees responsible for considering different provisions of the bill -- including the environment, finance, foreign relations, agriculture, energy and commerce panels -- said in a letter to Boxer they are "deeply troubled" by the chairwoman's plan to move ahead without the comprehensive analysis.[8] Boxer has pointed to existing EPA analysis that suggested the legislation would have only a small impact on consumers. U.N. Climate Change Secretariat head Yvo de Boer called on the United States on Monday to set a 2020 goal for cutting its greenhouse gas emissions. The full Senate was not expected to vote on a bill this year.[4] The delay nixes any few remaining hopes that the U.S. Congress can pass a bill limiting greenhouse gas emissions before the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December. Senate aides are now saying they do not expect the final legislation to even be debated on the Senate floor this year.[19]
The climate change legislation will tighten limits on carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Refiners, power plants, manufacturers, and other industrial plants will be forced to either cut their emissions or buy and trade allowances in order to release emissions. The seven Republicans on the panel, led by James Inhofe of Oklahoma, had hoped their boycott would encourage the Environmental Protection Agency to complete a new analysis of the price tag of the climate change bill.[11] Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer tried to extend an olive branch to Republicans on climate change Monday evening, extending a deadline for them to offer amendments to her global warming legislation. Even as she made new advances, Boxer (D-Calif.) vowed to continue with her controversial mark-up, with or without GOP support.[20] Hoping to avert a partisan meltdown, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) yesterday offered an olive branch to Republicans who are planning to boycott today's markup of a sweeping global warming bill.[21]
As promised, the Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycott ed the markup of the climate bill this morning.[22] Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are planning to skip a scheduled Tuesday work session on a sweeping climate-change bill, citing what they say is an incomplete economic analysis of the measure by the Environmental Protection Agency.[23]
In Washington, shortly before Merkel spoke in the House chamber, GOP senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee shunned the planned startup of voting on amendments to a 959-page Democratic bill that would curb greenhouse gases from power plants and large industrial facilities. They protested that the bill's cost to the economy - in the form of more expensive energy and the impact on jobs - had not been fully examined. The action underscored the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year - or even in showing significant momentum ahead of the Copenhagen conference. At that meeting, nations will try to forge an agreement on cutting heat-trapping pollution beyond levels established in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.[24] The Democratic bill calls for imposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities and cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020. Polluters would be given emission allowances that they could trade among themselves to ease the economic effect of the transition from fossil fuels. Republicans have argued the bill — patterned after legislation passed by the House earlier this year — amounts to a huge energy tax because energy, including electricity, from fossil fuels will become more expensive. Boxer argues such costs can be contained and cites the EPA study that says the cost to households would on average be $80 to $111 a year. Boxer said she wants to try to accommodate the Republicans, but insisted she will push ahead with plans to begin voting on amendments to the bill. When those votes will start was unclear. Boxer said on Tuesday she will make available officials from the EPA so Republicans can quiz them about their cost study. "We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side," Boxer told reporters Monday.[9]
The bill -- which sets a falling cap on greenhouse gas emissions and allows companies to buy and sell the right to emit -- would affect nearly every sector of the economy. Moving ahead with a committee vote without the EPA analyses or resolving some of the concerns raised by both GOP and Democratic members, "would severely damage, rather than help, the chances of enacting changes to our nation's climate and energy policies," the ranking Republicans said in the letter.[8] Republicans have argued the bill amounts to a huge energy tax because energy, including electricity, from fossil fuels will become more expensive. Democrats privately called the GOP tactic largely an attempt to delay consideration of climate legislation and said all seven of the committee's Republicans already had made clear that they have no intention of voting for the bill. While Boxer said she hoped the Republicans would change their minds and participate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., another committee member, wasn't as kind at a news conference. "It's almost like schoolchildren over there," said Lautenberg, referring to the GOP boycott.[25] Republicans have vowed to boycott the proceeding. This end run around Republicans -- ignoring the usual rules that require at least two Republicans to be present for a quorum -- could further hinder the chances for an already troubled cap-and-trade bill. "From our viewpoint, such an approach would severely damage, rather than help, the chances of enacting changes to our nation's climate and energy policies," wrote the top GOP senators on the six committees with jurisdiction over climate change legislation. Regardless of what happens in her own committee, Boxer's bill will most likely undergo a significant overhaul in other committees. Her freelancing on the process would only give Republicans one more easy argument against the legislation, Democratic aides say. "She poisoned the waters," said one Democratic aide.[14]
Republicans followed through this morning on their threat to boycott a Senate committee's work this week on a sweeping climate change bill. The only one to show up, the Associated Press reports, was George Voinovich of Ohio, the ranking Republican on the environment committee, and he only attended to explain why the GOP is staying away. He said the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but reflects concern that the full economic impact of the bill has not been studied or made clear.[26] Democrats' efforts to undermine the Republican climate boycott continued even outside the environment panel. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised today that he would submit the upper chamber's final bill, which will be a merged product of the work of five separate committees, to the full EPA workup that the GOP is demanding.[6] Environment committee Republicans "are not opposed to a markup, only on holding one before we have a full economic analysis," said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for the GOP members on the panel, in an email over the weekend. Few political analysts believe the Senate will this year consider a climate bill on the chamber floor, as a raft of other committees also want their chance to craft the legislation and other major priorities are vying for the Senate's attention.[8]
Democratic efforts to push a sweeping climate change bill through the Senate this year suffered a severe set-back on Tuesday, when a Republican boycott delayed a key committee'''s vote on sending the bill to the full chamber.[19] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called on the Senate to draft comprehensive climate change legislation, but the powerful business group stopped short of endorsing the cap and trade system at the heart of Democratic climate change bills. "The Chamber stands ready to work with Congress to resolve this issue in a bipartisan manner that recognizes regional differences, the state of the technology, and the compelling need for a solution that minimizes overall economic impact," the Chamber wrote in a letter Tuesday to Sens. Barbara Boxer, (D-Calif.) and Jim Inhofe, (R-Okla.)[27] Democratic senators face empty chairs today in the Environment and Public Works Committee that was meant to put the Cap and Trade climate change bill proposed by D-California Barbara Boxer into it's final form.[18] In the letter to environment committee chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D., Calif.) and ranking members Sen. James Inhofe, (R., Okla.), the chamber "commended" the Senator's editorial. "The Chamber welcomes the call for a new conversation on how to address the issue and believes their editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill," wrote Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive Vice President of Government Affairs, in the letter. "Senators Kerry and Graham have set forth a positive, practical and realistic framework for legislation, one that echoes the core principles that the chamber embeds in all of its communications on climate policy," he said. The organization came under heavy fire by environmental groups and some businesses after its officials challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's draft proposal finding greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to public health and welfare.[12] Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for the committee's Republicans, told CNN that applying the exception would be a "nuclear option" by Democrats that would worsen the panel's already strained political climate. In his remarks, Voinovich asked the committee to hold off its debate until getting a full Environmental Protection Agency analysis of a bill that he said would affect every American. The committee chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, responded that the panel has held dozens of hearings on the issue, and that she had taken the unprecedented step of scheduling a session with EPA experts later Tuesday to answer any questions by committee members.[28] The seven committee Republicans won't show, denying the majority a quorum. Late Friday night, after the panel's chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued notice of her intention to take up the bill she co-authored with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Republicans released a joint statement explaining the reason behind their boycott. The Environmental Protection Agency, they said, needs to run a more extensive analysis than the two-week study it's already performed on the bill. "The taxpayers expect us to know what this 1,000-page bill costs before we start voting on it," the statement read. "They will only know this if we have a full economic analysis of how Kerry-Boxer affects them. This bill threatens Americans with trillions of dollars in higher energy taxes and millions of lost jobs. As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted this week, EPA has 'not run the full economic modeling.' We cannot move forward in the legislative process if we don't have a complete understanding of this bill." A committee spokesman, Peter Rafle, suggested the Republicans need to reassess their strategy.[29] Chairman Barbara Boxer termed the session a business meeting, a term that permits markup despite the absence of at least two Republicans at the table. Committee Republicans followed through on a threat to boycott the session, saying they won't begin to work on the bill until they see a full cost analysis of the measure, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions and establish a market for trading government-issued pollution allowances.[30]
Momentum shifted into reverse Tuesday in the Senate. When Sen. Barbara Boxer of California convened her environment committee to start voting on the climate bill she and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had fashioned, she was faced with a Republican boycott. Only Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio showed up and he stayed only for 15 minutes to lay out the reasons for the Republicans' absence.[17] Senator Richard Lugar, a moderate Senate Republican whose support Democrats would like to win, warned that "it would not be constructive" if Boxer pushed the climate bill through the environment panel during a Republican boycott.[4] So far, other Republicans have yet to publically voice strong support for a climate bill. Arizona Republican John McCain, who's co-sponsored several versions of his 2003 climate bill, has made clear that it will be difficult for him to support the Boxer-Kerry proposal without significantly greater commitments on nuclear power. McCain told POLITICO that he's spoken with Kerry about his requirements and the Democrat is "not ready to do that." Alexander has vocally opposed Boxer's legislation - a stance some Democratic aides attribute to his position in the Republican Senate leadership. Although he is pushing hard for electric cars, expanded nuclear power, and renewable energy, Alexander believes the Kerry-Boxer bill will hurt economic growth.[3] Our Readers Who Comment are arguing about whether global warming exists, whether nuclear power plants are a good idea and the relative merits of the American political belief system because of a Post report that climate change legislation has no chance of passing the Senate unless some Republicans decide to vote for it. As reporter Juliet Eilperin writes, "So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants."[31] Reporting from Washington - German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday urged Congress to take dramatic action to stop climate change, but the political difficulties were evident as Republicans boycotted a Senate committee meeting on a global warming bill.[32] WASHINGTON — Republican senators on Monday demanded additional studies on the cost and job impact of a climate bill before it is voted on by a key committee, exposing the sharp partisan divide in Congress over legislation aimed at addressing global warming.[9] Republicans are calling for a '''full economic analysis''' of the Kerry-Boxer bill, including the impact on jobs, consumers, ratepayers, families, and small businesses in various parts of the country. '''This bill will have an unprecedented impact on our national security, economy, environmental and energy needs. For that reason, members should have a full understanding of what this means for their states and constituents,''' said Sen. George Voinovich (R) of Ohio, who read a statement outlining GOP reasons for the boycott at the top of Tuesday'''s markup and then left. In a speech to a joint session of Congress this morning, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Congress that there was '''no time to lose''' in the fight against global warming. '''We need an agreement at the climate conference in December in Copenhagen,''' she said. '''That requires the readiness of all countries to accept binding international commitments.'''[33] EU urges U.S. climate plan as GOP boycotts Senate panel vote Boston Globe WASHINGTON - European leaders pressed Congress and the White House yesterday to unite on a plan to combat global warming before next month's summit in Denmark, even as a Republican boycott forced a delay of votes in a key Senate committee, demonstrating the deep partisan rift.[16] WASHINGTON (AP) — A threatened Republican boycott of a Senate committee's consideration of climate legislation is exposing the sharp partisan divide over a Democratic proposal to combat global warming.[25] Full-blown partisan warfare is expected tomorrow when Democrats try to begin a markup of global warming legislation in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee despite plans by the panel's seven Republicans to skip the meeting altogether.[15] The partisan rift in the Environment and Public Works Committee laid bear the sharp divisions in the Senate over how to address global warming, although a number of centrist Democrats also have expressed problems with the bill. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who said he had reservations about the bill, was also a no-show, but Baucus' staff said that was because of a scheduling conflict.[17]
High political theater will take place at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday, when the panel's Democrats will convene to mark up their climate bill.[29] The United States Chamber of Commerce emailed a letter Tuesday to the heads of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works during the markup of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill, stating that the business lobby is willing to work with the committee to address climate change. The letter, sent by R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President for Government Affairs, stated that "climate change is an important issue for this Congress to address, the chamber stands ready to work with Congress to resolve this issue in a bipartisan matter.[34]
A high-profile Republican whom Democrats had hoped would cross the aisle -- Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who co-authored an op-ed on climate change with Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a lead sponsor of the bill -- is now vocally opposed. That dims the prospects of the Senate passing a bill. The Democratic-controlled House passed its version in June. President Obama's grassroots group sent an email to supporters whose senators sit on the environment committee urging them to contact their lawmakers.[26] The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have essentially abandoned prospects of getting a climate bill to the president's desk before the two-week conference, which starts Dec. 7. They hope a show of progress in the Senate — along with the House having passed a bill and Obama's call for more fuel efficient cars — will show the world the U.S. is taking climate change seriously.[17] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The natural gas industry looks to be a big winner in U.S. Senate legislation to tackle climate change on expectations it would lead to more gas demand and a new wave of gas-fired power plants. After getting few breaks in the House of Representatives climate bill earlier this year, the industry stepped up lobbying as the Senate wrote its version.[35] The bill does not mandate a specific fuel, but as the legislation is written, the energy source that would be able to meet the emission-reduction targets and also be the easiest for coal-fired power plants to switch to, especially in the early years, would be natural gas, analysts say. "Clearly it was directed at natural gas, and natural gas would be the principal beneficiary of these subsidies," said Mary Anne Sullivan, an attorney specializing in climate change and energy at the Washington law firm of Hogan and Hartson. The gas industry has acknowledged it was asleep at the switch as the House crafted its legislation to tackle global warming.[35]
The EPA conducted a thorough analysis of the House version of the climate change bill, and Boxer's bill borrows heavily from the House version. The EPA study focused on the pieces of her bill that were different that the House legislation. "As far as I can tell there is no justification for going forward at this point to a lengthy complex and ultimately unnecessary analysis," said Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. "It is complete model."[20] Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), had offered several olive branches to placate Republcans, including a extension of the deadline for amendments until 5 p.m. today. She also adjusted the schedule on Tuesday to bring in EPA experts to answer questions about their modeling and analysis of the legislation. Boxer said she has confirmed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he will call for a five-week analysis of the legislation once it is combined with relevant measures from other committees. The EPA, Boxer noted, has compiled more than 340,000 pages of analysis on both the House and Senate bills already. Voinovich, however, insisted that despite the stalling tactics he did really "want to work on a bipartisan basis." He said: "I'm pleading to you, the chairman, as a matter of the golden rule, or the second commandment. for decency.[22] Boxer the Senate bill was "90 percent the same" as the House version and the EPA analysis provided to the committee took into account the differences. That EPA analysis estimates modest cost to households from higher energy prices of $80 to $111 a year. Associated Press writer Desmond Butler contributed to this report.[17] Nelson's comments came after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the House version of the bill would likely cost U.S. families 175 dollars per year, while the EPA has set the price tag at about 80-111 dollars per year. Groups that represent industries likely to be adversely affected have placed the cost much higher, while the Republicans on Boxer's committee have vowed to shun Tuesday's session because they lack a comprehensive EPA cost assessement. "The taxpayers expect us to know what this 1,000-page bill costs before we start voting on it. They will only know this if we have a full economic analysis," said Senator James Inhofe, the panel's top Republican.[1]
One Republican, George Voinovich of Ohio, did appear at the committee meeting, offering a lengthy plea to Boxer to delay the markup until the EPA completes a cost analysis that it says would take about five weeks. Voinovich said - this is not a stalling tactic. It is not a ruse to delay marking up a climate bill. This is an attempt to get the best information about a bill that will affect the entire country.[30] Boxer called the EPA cost study "unprecedented in scope" and said it didn't matter that it was largely based on an analysis of the House-passed climate bill because "our bill is 90 percent the same." Boxer told reporters late Monday she wants to try to accommodate the Republicans, but insisted she will push ahead with plans to begin voting on amendments to the bill. When those votes will start was unclear. Boxer said Tuesday would be limited to senators' remarks, and said she will make officials from the EPA available so Republicans can quiz them about their cost study. "We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side," Boxer told reporters.[25]
The ranking Republicans on five other committees that will have some say in climate legislation also called the EPA analysis unsatisfactory and said senators should not be expected to vote on a bill "without a full and complete analysis of the likely effects."[25] Inhofe joined Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and other Republicans in insisting on '''a full and complete analysis of the likely effects''' of the measure. '''We are deeply troubled by the (Democrats') failure to accommodate a request ''' for a complete analysis of the bill's projected impacts on the nation,''' they said in a letter to Boxer. The group added a warning that if Boxer tries to advance the legislation out of her committee without '''a satisfactory analysis''' and bipartisan involvement, it will '''severely damage, rather than help, the chances of enacting changes to our nation's climate and energy policies.'''[11] Republicans on Boxer's committee have vowed to boycott the legislation unless an additional analysis is completed by the Environmental Protection Agency. "We are deeply troubled by the failure to accommodate a request from Senator Voinovich and other Republicans for a complete analysis of the bill's projected impacts on the nation," they wrote. Boxer urged Republicans on Monday to drop their boycott of the bill, but say she planned to move forward - despite their oppostion. "The Committee Republicans should rethink their approach," she said in a statement[13] Republicans on Boxer'''s committee have vowed to boycott the legislation unless an additional analysis is completed by the Environmental Protection Agency. She knows the EPAs findings are going to damage the bills and the liberal/dems credibility, this is going to be another long drawn out FUBAR bill that will cost the tax payers millions if not billions to defend themselves against from these extreme liberals in our countries government. Please read and sign this Instrument of Repudiation.[13]
The wrangling over when debate can start illustrated how difficult it will be to get any bill to the Senate floor and passed into law before year end, complicating President Barack Obama's hopes that the United States will take a leading role in Copenhagen. Saying she was attempting to address Republican concerns, Boxer told reporters Tuesday's work session would be suspended in the afternoon so experts from the Environmental Protection Agency could come before the committee to answer technical questions -- from Democrats or Republicans -- about the bill. Boxer also said she would extend a deadline for Republicans to notify her of amendments they might pursue to the bill. "We're not going to rush this through," she said, adding she hoped Republicans "return to the table."[4] The bill calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by mid-century. Republicans say the bill amounts to a massive energy tax because it would force a shift away from cheaper fossil fuels such as coal and raise electricity and other energy prices. Voinovich said an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency cited by Boxer falls far short of what is needed and was based on a House-passed bill that he said is significantly different from the bill before the Senate.[16]
Washington (CNN) -- Republicans boycotted a Senate committee hearing Tuesday on a major bill to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.[28] At a press conference today, Reid likening Republicans to unwilling dance partners. "She has been extremely deliberative and very patient," Reid said of Boxer. "And so I don't know what more she can do." Late Update: At the end of today's climate change session, Boxer revealed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which recently lost several high-profile members thanks to its criticism of the congressional climate bills -- has written to the Senate endorsing the legislative goals set out in a recent op-ed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).[6] Outside the United States, there is a growing frustration with a perceived American inaction on climate change legislation. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in September that climate change legislation would likely have to wait for next year, John Bruton, the European Union's ambassador to the United States, publicly expressed his displeasure. "Is the U.S. Senate really expecting all the other countries to make a serious effort on climate change at the Copenhagen Conference (in December) in the absence of a clear commitment from the United States?" he said. Boxer has indicated that she would consider using committee and Senate rules to advance the legislation to the Senate floor if Republicans continue their boycott, but she portrayed that as a last ditch option. "We're just going to wait until they come," she said.[36] We'll start with terrymulligan, who wrote, "So much political capital being wasted on legislation that effectively dooms the planet by encouraging inaction. It's unfortunate that most Republicans and a large portion of Democrats in the Senate can't support a climate change bill.[31] The skepticism of Republican motivation, however, is due. Voinovich has made it clear that he doesn't simply want further study from the EPA - he wants studies that use his own, more pessimistic assumptions in modeling the bill. He blocked the confirmation of the second-in-command at EPA to get his way, putting in place an impediment to EPA work. While Voinovich - who holds onto the title of "moderate" on climate policy simply by virtue of acknowledging that climate change is happening - is the public face of this boycott, it's also important to note the role of Ranking Minority Member James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe, a noted climate change denier, has shown no interest in substantive debate on legislation addressing an issue he doesn't think is even happening. He was also not present for the markup this morning, though his press secretary showed up to hand out a statement insisting that they really, really do want to hold markup of a bill before the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.[22] "There has to be some sort of leverage" to get a more detailed study, said Inhofe, a sharp critic of not only the Democratic bill, but of the science of climate change. While Boxer said she hoped the Republicans would "change their minds" and participate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., another committee member, wasn't as kind at a news conference. "It's almost like school children over there," said Lautenberg. He called on the Republicans "to step up to the plate."[9] The Chamber singled out Massachusetts Democratic John Kerry and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, who authored a New York Times editorial last month suggesting a compromise climate bill that included controversial proposals like expanding domestic drilling and nuclear power. "Senators Kerry and Graham have set forth a positive, practical and realistic framework for legislation, one that echoes the core principles that the Chamber embeds in all of its communications on climate policy," wrote R. Bruce Josten, the Chamber's chief lobbyist.[27] There are many good ideas out there that can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense and realistic foundation on which to craft a bill. The Chamber commends Senators Kerry and Graham for their recent New York Times editorial on the need for comprehensive climate legislation. The Chamber welcomes the call for a new conversation on how to address the issue, and believes their editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill.[37]
Lawmakers first have to finish the health-care debate, and there are financial-services restructuring and several appropriations bills to consider. Ms. Boxer and administration officials would like to have the landmark climate legislation passed out of committee as one trophy they would be able to take to a major international climate summit in Copenhagen next month. Such action could provide some assurance to other governments that the U.S. is serious about passing into law new rules to cut greenhouse gases, giving the Obama administration greater leverage in its talks.[8] The biggest difference deals with language that pre-empts U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under two especially strict provisions of the Clean Air Act that deal with air toxics and nationwide emission levels, also known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Amendments to the Boxer bill are due by 9 a.m. today, though most committee Democrats said last week that they were largely satisfied with the existing bill. Republican committee members insisted that they had not even begun thinking about that stage of the process given the partisan infighting that has put the entire markup process in jeopardy.[15] In a pitiful display of "leadership," Republican boycotted today's discussion of a climate bill in a U.S. Senate committee. By failing to show up, the GOP senators showed they have no interest in trying to help the nation pass a responsible bill to control harmful emissions while not killing the U.S. economy.[38] The Republicans warned in a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the environment committee chairman, that failure to accommodate GOP senators seeking further studies "would severely damage rather than help" the chances of getting the bipartisan support needed to get a bill through the Senate.[25]
Republicans boycotted the Environment and Public Works Committee meeting to protest the refusal of committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to order a full new analysis of the legislation, preventing votes on amendments.[39] Republicans for the most part plan to stay away from a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday as the panel begins deliberations over legislation that would cap greenhouse gases from power and industrial plants and curb the use of fossil fuels.[25] Only one of the seven Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio -- showed up for the panel's opening session. He left the meeting after delivering an opening statement.[28]
Well, today we're seeing a repeat performance only it appears genuine. The Chamber has posted a letter on its Website that it sent to the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.)[37] Despite a significant number of empty chairs, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee took about two hours of opening statements Tuesday, as the panel began Markup of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power act.[30]
We'''ll take some time to wait for our friends,''' said Chairwoman Boxer, at the end of the aborted morning session of the Environment and Public Works Committee. If Republicans prolong the boycott, she hinted that Democrats, with a five-seat majority on the panel, are prepared to go on without them.[33]
Democratic Senator John Kerry is holding talks with Republicans and moderate Democrats that could lead to a quite different measure being presented to the full Senate next year. It would likely retain core elements of the bill before Boxer's panel but could contain incentives for expanding the U.S. nuclear power industry and offshore oil drilling.[4] Boxer also said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has promised the full EPA analysis sought by Republicans before the bill comes before the entire Senate.[28] Inhofe didn't buy it. He said it was his word against McIntosh's and they were holding out for a complete review. McIntosh did say during the hour he spent in Boxer's meeting room that to do another analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill would cost $135,000 and 1600 hours of staff work. It makes much more sense, he said, to wait until Majority Leader Harry Reid melds together the bill from Boxer's panel and the other committees with jurisdiction on this issue, including the Energy, Finance, Commerce, Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees. Boxer said she got a promise from Reid that he would wait the five weeks it would take for a full EPA analysis of the melded bill, once such a measure was available. That could happen by the end of the year or early in 2010.[5]
Boxer's push to pass the bill out of committee, warn Republicans, could backfire. "From our viewpoint, such an approach would severely damage, rather than help, the chances of enacting changes to our nation's climate and energy policies," the Republican senators wrote.[13] WASHINGTON -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday urged Congress to take dramatic action to stop climate change, but the political difficulties were evident as Republicans boycotted a Senate committee meeting to consider changes to a climate-change bill.[39] The House and Senate climate change bills would impose higher energy and food costs on consumers, raise fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for farmers, and shrink the American agricultural sector, resulting in reduced U.S. food production.[40] Democratic Senator John Kerry, a co-author of the bill, has warned that U.S. leadership is on the line ahead of the global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen next month. The December 7-18 summit is aimed at a treaty that will tackle carbon emissions and their impacts, and encourage a switch to cleaner energy after 2012, when the current Kyoto Protocol pledges expire.[1] 'Over the years, whether it was with the leadership of Sen. Jack Heinz, Sen. John McCain, or Sen. John Warner, we've made progress on climate change when we've been able to overcome partisan divisions. We've never needed to do that more than today," he said in a statement. "We should remember that the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee called for strong, mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions as part of his campaign, and Sen. Lindsey Graham has joined us in this year's fight. Chairman Boxer is determined to see this Congress pass a strong climate bill for the President to sign.[26]
The chamber urged the committee to take important steps to bridge the political and geographical divide that prevented the similar efforts to pass effective climate change legislation in past years. '''This really is a game changer If the Chamber of Commerce that has long opposed climate change is now saying in their first sentence this is a tremendous signal,''' said Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Boxer declined to put the letter on record until they could authenticate it. The politically charged prank troupe "Yes Men" recently held a fake press conference posing as members of the Chamber of Commerce in which they stated the organization supports climate change legislation.[34] For the sake of workers in my state and elsewhere whose jobs are hanging in the balance, slow down, take a deep breath, let EPA do what it needs to do, and let'''s come back in four to five weeks and have a markup,''' Senator Voinovich said. '''Otherwise, you will do great damage to the traditions of this committee and make it harder to reach a bipartisan compromise on climate change legislation.''' Boxer countered: '''EPA has made it clear they stand behind the economic analysis and that it is more analysis than is typically provided before a markup.'''[33] Voinovich's reputation for bipartisan deal making and concerns about climate change had raised hopes that the retiring senator could be in play. His aides say it is unlikely that he'll be able to support this legislation, blaming his opposition on a fast-tracked committee procedure.[3]
For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher, or Firefox 2.0 or higher, at a minimum screen resolution of 1024x768. A key U.S. Senate committee forges ahead Tuesday with sweeping climate change legislation, as its backers nervously watch time run short before December's make-or-break global summit in Denmark.[1] Hopes of a binding global agreement are fading with the Senate bill still stuck in committee and Congress not expected to finalize legislation until next year.[35]
Democrats hold a 12-7 edge on the panel, but infighting among Democrats on the "cap-and-trade" regime the legislation would create for pollutants has clouded the legislation's fate, with some predicting the full Senate will not vote until 2010. The House of Representatives passed a White House-backed bill in June to create a "cap and trade" system, but both chambers must approve the same legislation in order to send it to Obama for his signature.[2] The House has already passed a similar bill, but Senate approval is considered a much tougher challenge for Democratic proponents of the "cap-and-trade" legislation that would contribute to reshaping the U.S. energy system. CNN's Lesa Jansen, Evan Glass and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.[28]
The Chamber would like a bill that increases support for nuclear power, new coal technologies, domestic oil and gas exploration, and renewable energy. The country's largest business lobby has come under fire recently for its opposition to the climate bill and other pieces of the White House agenda. Over the past few weeks, a series of companies have left the Chamber over opposition to its position on the climate bill.[27] Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are scheduled to meet tomorrow with several top Obama administration officials on the climate bill, including White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Energy Secretary Steven Chu.[21]
Last month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina became the first Republican to endorse the Senate version of the climate bill. He and Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts expect to meet with Obama administration officials to work out compromises in the Kerry-Boxer climate bill to expand bipartisan support.[33] By pushing the climate bill ahead without the GOP, Boxer might be sacrificing the bi-partisan support she"ll need in the final senate vote to enact it.[18] As result, Democrats will likely need some Republican votes in order to pass a bill in the Senate, said Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. "the Republicans are trying to create paralysis through their demands for analysis," Weiss said. "It's a stalling tactic." He argued that most of the Republicans had opposed the bill before it was introduced and said that only a few, including Voinovich and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, might be persuaded to support a broader bill. Voinovich insisted his request for more analysis is "not a ruse."[32] On climate, the two parties are battling over a handful of Republicans who might support a bill, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, of Maine. The Republican leadership sees cap and trade as an issue that could severely hurt Democratic chances in the midterm elections and they're pressuring their members to vote against the bill to keep their caucus as united as possible. Democrats will need Republican votes to pass a bill to offset possible losses within their own party.[3]
I hate to think what things would be like if Democrats completely ignored all Republican input. They might pass a $787B "stimulus" package without Republican support. They might pass a follow-up $400B omnibus spending bill just in case any dollars were left in the Treasry that had not been doled out to Democrat supporters. They might craft health reform that increases taxes, reduces services, and decides who lives and who dies. Now they might pass "Cap and Trade" (affectionately AKA "Crap and Tax") that raises energy cost for business and families, drives business offshore, and creates perpetual double-digit unemployment.[14]
The public has a right to know what's in the bill and what the EPA thinks it will cost. Committee votes matter, because once a senator supports something in committee it's very hard for them to change their mind on later votes. That makes it even more outrageous that the first votes could be cast while much of the bill-and its sky-high costs for regular Americans-remain secret.[41] The committee minority, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), don't want a climate change bill to move forward. The most moderate among them--Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)--isn't pleased that official EPA reports don't paint a sufficiently gloomy picture of a post-cap and trade future and together, the GOP is boycotting committee proceedings at least until such time as they get their hands on such a study.[10] Voinovich left the committee room soon afterward, leaving the panel's Democrats to question David McIntosh, the EPA's associate administrator for congressional affairs, on the relative irrelevance of performing another climate bill analysis.[6] Committee rules provide that the Chairman's Mark be circulated three days before a business meeting, and we released it, along with the EPA's economic analysis, ten days before the markup." "No climate bill has ever had this level of review and the Obama administration stands behind the EPA's analysis."[7] Inhofe held court outside the committee room and told reporters that the GOP will not return to debate the climate bill until a proper EPA analysis is done.[5]
The Senate Environment Committee held three days of hearings on the climate bill last week - it goes to committee debate today.[7] The committee's 12-member Democratic majority ensures enough support to send the bill to the full Senate without any Republican support.[28] In a letter to Boxer, the Republicans warned that failure to accommodate GOP senators seeking further studies "would severely damage rather than help" the chances of getting the bipartisan support needed to get a bill through the Senate.[9] Although the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a short analysis of the Senate bill, the agency said a comprehensive analysis wouldn't be finished for a few more weeks. "While such analyses are never perfect, they are an essential aspect of the legislative decision-making process when policy changes of such consequences are in play," the ranking Republican senators wrote.[8]
A letter drafted by the GOP senators said "such an approach would severely damage rather than help the chances of enacting changes to our nation's climate and energy policies." Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, called the move by the Republicans childish in a news conference, and playing hooky will not help to accomplish what they want for the bill.[18]
Failure to cut emissions would result in missed opportunities for sustainable economic growth from clean energy, the German leader said. Democrats stood and cheered during her comments on climate change, while many Republicans sat without applauding. "She's going to be disappointed," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.[39] The Obama administration and many fellow Democrats in Congress think that committee approval would further demonstrate momentum in the United States for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans want more analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency of the economic impact of legislation that would require utilities, factories and oil refineries to cut their carbon pollution 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels.[4] Moderate Democrats blame Boxer's partisan style for the failure of climate legislation last year. Boxer says she is proceeding on a day-by-day basis and hopes Republicans will let her proceed using the regular process. She offered to extend the deadline for Republicans to submit amendments until Tuesday evening and said that an Environmental Protection Agency official would come to the hearing to answer any questions. "We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side, and we really hope they will return to the table," said Boxer.[14] Democrats are deeply divided on climate change legislation, and Republicans boycotted the hearings this week, which leaves little hope for passage of legislation this year.[7]
In a bid to woo swing-vote Republicans, Kerry has partnered with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has proposed tying the climate change measure to legislation expanding the use of nuclear plants to generate energy.[1]
Nuclear power is the answer to climate change," Graham said recently. Skepticism from swing-vote Democrats may make it difficult, if not impossible, for Obama's allies to rally the 60 votes needed to ensure that they can break through any parliamentary delaying tactics and approve the bill. "I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged," one such Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, told CNBC television on Friday.[1] Republican boycott of climate change discussion leaves Senate Democrats going it alone for now.[33] Most Democrats and some Republicans want to take action to reduce emissions of gases that cause climate change.[36]
'''Senators who believe that climate change is real will not abandon the debate for too long. The stakes are too high,''' he added. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has produced a 38-page '''discussion document''' of Kerry-Boxer that Republicans say doesn'''t resolve their concerns.[33]
Republicans would like Boxer to hold the legislation for several weeks until the Environmental Protection agency can do additional economic modeling of the bill.[20] Boxer and other committee Democrats said that the Environmental Protection Agency's existing analysis, based on a bill passed by the House in June, is sufficient.[39] But''no Republicans showed up. The Democrats spent a hour asked McIntosh leading questions that all added up''to an affirmation on his part that not only was the EPA analysis of the House''global warming bill extensive, but that the measure authored by Boxer and Sen. John Kerry wasn't different enough from the House bill to lead to a difference''EPA analysis.[5]
The seven Republicans on the committee plan to boycott a Tuesday legislative hearing about the bill unless Boxer agrees to wait for additional economic analysis of the bill. As part of their boycott, none of the seven Republicans on the committee offered amendments to the bill by the Monday morning deadline.[20] Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) was expected to move forward with her bill on Friday, even as all seven Republicans on the committee threatened to boycott any mark-up hearing held next week.[3]
This DNC tendency to staff committees with the ideological left of their party while deliberately disenfranchising Republicans will almost certainly create a backlash. Without compromise, all the legislation they pass will be in jeopardy the moment the Republicans regain power. It's appalling that for its talk, the Obama administration is proving to be hyperpartisan in a way that far surpasses George W. Bush. Barbara Boxer was a terrible choice to lead this committee and this scorched earth policy of the DNC will ultimately fail.[14] Call it empty-table diplomacy with a nuclear option. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) ended the morning today shuffling papers in silence at the head of an empty table, as Republican senators boycotted Day 1 of her panel'''s markup of historic climate legislation. '''This is an opportunity.[33]
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided "a full blown economic analysis" and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted "we're not rushing we are taking our time."[25] Barbara Boxer extended the deadline for amendments and invited a representative from the EPA to answer questions about the bill in a special session.[20]
If Boxer's threatening to vote on the bill without Republicans present constitutes a "nuclear option," then isn't it just as much a "nuclear option" if not moreso, that the Republicans are trying to halt any progress on this bill by boycotting the committee meetings? This article seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Boxer wouldn't even have to make this threat if the Republicans weren't first threatening the ridiculous step of boycotting their own committee. [14] In the meantime, Boxer is determined to get her'' bill beyond the committee stage. Inhofe said if Boxer went ahead on her own she would'' "destroy the integrity of the committee system." Boxer''wouldn't give us a preview of her strategy, saying she heard a rumor the Republicans might show up in the morning or they might not.[5]
All Republicans except Voinovich boycotted the start of committee debate on a bill to curb greenhouse gases in a protest that the bill's economic costs have not been fully examined.[24] Kerry and other champions of robust U.S. action to curb greenhouse gases blamed for global warming have openly said the full Senate will not vote on a final bill before the summit.[1] European Union leaders, also meeting with Obama at the White House, pressed anew for U.S. action and for a larger U.S. contribution to an international aid fund to help developing countries adapt to a warmer world. In Barcelona, African delegates to a preliminary climate conference briefly boycotted the discussions over their concern that industrial nations will not have to make significant enough reductions in greenhouse gases. Al Gore, a leading voice for action on global warming, said he expects Obama to visit the Copenhagen conference to reinforce the country's commitment.[16] _The European officials pressed for a larger U.S. contribution to an international aid fund to help developing countries adapt to a warmer world. _In Barcelona, Spain, African delegates to a preliminary climate conference briefly boycotted the discussions over their concern that industrial nations will not have to make significant enough reductions in greenhouse gases. They ended the boycott after assurances that the issue would be the subject of extended negotiations. _Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice for action on global warming, said he expects Obama to visit the Copenhagen conference to reinforce the country's commitment.[17]
"We all know we have no time to lose," Merkel said, arguing that at Copenhagen "the world will look to us, to the Europeans and to the Americans" for leadership on setting binding reductions of greenhouse gases. It's a matter "in the interest of our children and grandchildren and in the interest of sustainable development all over the world," she said. "I liked her speech, but I disagree with her completely on the climate comments," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a sharp critic of the Senate bill. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters that he was worried about the progress being made ahead of the Copenhagen conference and called a climate agreement "a defining moment" for this generation of world leaders. They ended the boycott after assurances that the issue would be the subject of extended negotiations. Associated Press writer Desmond Butler contributed to this report. [24]
The House and Senate climate bills are not a first step in the right direction. They would give away valuable rights in cap-and-trade permits and create a trillion-dollar carbon-offsets market that will not lead to needed reductions.[42] The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have essentially abandoned prospects of getting a climate bill to the president's desk before the Copenhagen conference Dec. 7.[16]
In that letter, the Chamber said it "does not, as a matter of policy, support or oppose any specific conceptual approach to address greenhouse gas emissions, including a cap-and-trade or carbon tax," but specifically warned against the EPA regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act. Josten said the Chamber's particular concern with the House-passed climate bill was its "attempts to take a lot of fossil fuel offline, and it does very little to bring any of these alternatives or nuclears online." Asked if his organization would consider a cap-and-trade mechanism as currently being considered, Josten said, "Absolutely."[12] If members of Congress need yet another reason to kill the Waxman-Markey bill, the Obama administration's economy-suffocating, job-destroying energy program, Princeton University's Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have a humdinger: Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce, according to Searchinger.[3] The Senate bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to help subsidize coal-fired power plants switching to fuels that emit much fewer greenhouse gas emissions.[35] The Democratic bill calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by mid-century. Polluters would be given pollution permits that they could trade among themselves to ease the economic effect of the transition from fossil fuels.[17]
The Democrats' bill proposes cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants and factories 20% by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050. Among the Democrats, some conservative senators from coal-producing areas, such as Montana's Max Baucus and West Virginia's John D. Rockefeller IV, worry that the legislation could harm their states' economies.[32]
Several Republicans warned that moving forward with the process could undermine bipartisan support for the legislation as it moves through the Senate. "It would not be constructive as far as the bill is concerned," said Indiana Republican Sen. Dick Lugar.[20] As result, Democrats probably will need some Republicans to pass a bill in the Senate at large, said Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund. "the Republicans are trying to create paralysis through their demands for analysis," Weiss said. "It's a stalling tactic."[39] Prominent moderate Democrats like Sens. Max Baucus, of Montana, Blanche Lincoln, of Arkansas, and Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota, have raised a long list of concerns about the bill. At least some Democratic supporters expect them to lose the votes of Sens. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, and Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said on Friday that a cap and trade bill could not pass the Senate this Congress. "I haven't been able to sell that argument to my farmers, and I don't think they're going to buy it from anybody else," Nelson told CNBC on Friday.[3]
The GOP plan is to drag out and delay every bill put before them to try and get to 2010 in hopes they'll get enough seats to take back the House and or take 4-5 seats in the Senate, and then really have the Obama Administration by the balls. If they don't get either, they'll try the same delay tactics for two more years and then try again. All the while the Dems let them play their delay games without calling them out and making their tactics famous.[10]
Make no mistake: The GOP used a ruse by saying the economic analysis of the measure was not finished. Heck, for Republicans, the economic "analysis" of any environmental bill will never be to their liking if it comes down on the side of doing something to clean up the environment.[38] GOP members are demanding additional studies on the cost and job impact of the bill, arguing that an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency was inadequate.[25] Sen. Boxer is even trying to force it through without the official EPA analysis of what's in the bill and how much it will cost.[41]
In any event, the climate bill is bad for the U.S. You'll be the first whiner to talk about much energy costs will go up.[29] The EPW Committee effort is one key part of the overall attempt to move a climate and energy bill, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ultimately expected to fold the work of six committees together into one package.[21] Asked to comment on the EPW Committee standoff, Reid spokesman Jim Manley said, "Senator Reid hopes the committee will be able to work cooperatively to move comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation soon. It is long past time that the nation addressed this important issue."[21]
Then there's Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham doesn't sit on the committee at all, but he surprised everybody when he co-authored an op-ed with Kerry sounding the alarm on the need for climate action. Quickly, the conventional wisdom became that the road to comprehensive legislation goes through him. "I can understand the concerns, I mean one you get this bill dumped on you at 5 o'clock, I mean you really can't make meaningful amendments and.[10] EPW Committee rules state that opening a markup requires one-third of the members of the committee, including two members of the minority party. Legislation can be approved by the committee with a simple majority of members, an exception Boxer could use to pass her bill.[14] Boxer still plans to begin the markup at 9 a.m. with opening statements. She agreed to suspend the markup at 2 p.m. for an open-door meeting with U.S. EPA officials to answer committee members' questions about the economic modeling of the legislation, she noted in a letter (pdf) late yesterday.[21]
Submitted by leafsong1 (not verified) on November 3, 2009 - 7:53pm. "Boxer said she has confirmed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he will call for a five-week analysis of the legislation once it is combined with relevant measures from other committees.[22]
While Boxer hailed it as a change in at least posture, environmentalists were skeptical. Pete Altman, climate campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he interpreted the letter as an indication of the public pressure the Chamber's felt recently. "While the Chamber's letter goes through the motions, it noticeably omits the key goal of reducing carbon emissions, and winds up with a litany of reasons why the Chamber will almost certainly stand in opposition to any actual legislation," he said. "The true test will be whether the Chamber begins to engage in a sincere and constructive manner on this issue," Altman added.[12] The Chamber was the victim of a hoax last month in which a an environmental group called the Yes Men sent out a release and held a press conference claiming the chamber was now backing climate change legislation. A spokesman for the chamber, contacted by POLITICO, said the Josten letter today -- and the support of bipartisan climate change proposals -- is real this time.[27] The Chamber says even though it believes the EPA's decision isn't founded on a full assessment of data, the organization hasn't challenged the science of climate change. It has also drawn ire for a series of adds attacking climate legislation. Companies such as PG&E Corp. (PCG), PNM Resources Inc. (PNM) and Exelon Corp (EXC)--all of which stand to potentially benefit under climate legislation--say the Chamber hasn't been adequately representing their positions on climate change legislation.[12]
Josten pointed to a May 14, 2009 letter to federal lawmakers that called for "strong, sensible legislation to address global climate change that protects jobs and the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."[12] Kerry and Graham last month penned an editorial calling for bipartisan climate change legislation that would include a market-based solution to cut greenhouse gases that would provide flexibility to emitters and without hindering competitiveness or driving jobs overseas.[12]
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities. He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.[3]
The climate change bills in Congress will have a negative impact on agriculture and the entire U.S. economy.[40] The White House has pushed lawmakers to make as much progress as possible to signal U.S. seriousness on the issue before global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.[2] Maxpower99 said, "Global warming/ climate change is a hoax. The dems have decided they can't just honestly tax people anymore and still get elected, so the make this up and have the media try to sell it and get their energy tax under the guise of some save the planet/carbon credit bull5hit. This is a hoax, and I hope the writer is correct when she says it will die." It's worth it to accept cap and trade to get nuclear."[31] When someone has identified the actual problem in scientific terms, then stated a hypothesis, then tried like crazy to disprove said hypothesis without success, come and get me. Until the scientific approach to so-called "global warming", aka climate change, has been demonstrated, and Al Gore has actually used it by trying to DISPROVE that the earth is getting warmer, he and his kind haven't got a leg to stand on. No reputable scientist in this world is on their side.[27]
James Hansen is considered the world's leading authority on and the Father of Global Warming. He is the author of the above statements. He states unequiviocably that Cap and Trade cannot work and nuclear is the only way to reduce emissions. Oh yes, his opposition is because he thinks that the trillions of dollars in carbon taxes are not enough. This does not change the fact he says this bill will has no value and cannot work.[3] Most Democrats and some Republicans want to take action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, but negotiating how to accomplish that has proven difficult.[32] If we assume that global warming exists and is caused by human CO2 emission, a) how big a problem is it?, b) can we do anything about it?, and c) is the cost of doing something about it worse than the cost of letting it happen? Any of you big-brained Democrats got the answers? I thought not."[31]
There is more than the usual political name calling. Democrats use the term rethuglicans to attack the other party and accuse their own for not getting anything done, a reference both to health care legislation and global warming.[31] Their move, shortly before German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Congress to act on the issue, underscores the difficulty of negotiating legislation on global warming.[32]
In related news, U.S. climate legislation would hike gasoline prices about 13 cents a gallon as oil companies push the price of carbon permits on to consumers, according to Point Carbon, an independent consulting company that tracks global carbon and energy markets. Their analysts don't share the oil industry's view that a U.S. cap-and-trade system would decimate gasoline demand and force large numbers of refineries to shut down.[7] WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Republicans plan to block a vote this week on climate legislation, saying they need a complete economic analysis of a measure that would reshape the U.S. economy.[43] The fight over the analysis is just one manifestation of the serious divisions underlying climate change legislation.[36]
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen. President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change ''' claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary." Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.[27] Climate change was cited as the second most-pressing issue, with the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels coming in third.[31]
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday said it supports most of the principles outlined in a bipartisan climate change proposal offered by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R., N.C.) and the organization is open to considering a federal cap on emissions as one possible legislative solution.[12] "Is the U.S. Senate really expecting all the other countries to make a serious effort on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in the absence of a clear commitment from the United States?" Bruton said.[32]
The United States, which was recently overtaken by China as the top greenhouse gas emitter, will meet in Copenhagen in December with world leaders from 190 nations to try to hammer out an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol on fighting climate change.[35] From Norway to Gambia, dubious motives will use fear of climate change, and Copenhagen in an attempt to create a new world power.[3] Al Gore is in line to make a huge profit from a firm producing smart meters which monitor household electricity use. He is a partner in a Silicon Valley venture capital firm which invested over $70 million in Silver Spring Networks, a small California company which has been developing technology to monitor household power use to make the electricity grid more efficient. He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.[27] Is there a point in all this? Yes, the climate change scenario is a sophisticated tactic that feeds off the fears of the most gullible among us. Nuclear power generation has it's drawbacks, like all things do.[31]
"I suspect that there'd be no particular reason for many members to support it." Voinovich said he would not rule out voting for a climate proposal once it reaches the floor, though he said he doubted that he will ever be faced with such a decision. "Never say never," he said. "But I think that maybe, if that's what they do, maybe down the road someone will say, 'You know something, this ain't working out the way we thought it would.'" Boxer shrugged off questions about the political implications if she forced a final committee vote without gaining any GOP participation. "I don't think it should hurt us down the road at all," she said. "It shouldn't. It just seems to me we have to be smart here. [21] "Given the sheer size and significant economic impacts of the bill on the American people, we feel it is our duty to insist on having the analysis before members are to vote on the bill." Boxer said, "This bill has had comprehensive legislative hearings, with 54 expert witnesses in nine panels.[7]
At the chair'''s request, EPA officials were to appear Tuesday afternoon for a question and answer session with panel members on the bill. Republican senators say they expect to boycott this briefing, too.[33] Nearly all of the Democrats on the panel showed up, but of the Republicans only Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) made an appearance. He reiterated that he wanted more time to allow for further study of the bill, then left immediately after his 15-minute opening statement.[22] Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He said the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but concern that is widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.[25]
Republicans rejected that argument. "I don't recall finding meaningful solutions with incomplete information and stark partisanship," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who discussed his objections before departing, leaving the hearing room devoid of GOP senators. Even among the Democrats, there are senators such as Montana's Max Baucus and West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller who say they worry that legislation could harm their states' economies.[39]
The Chamber also singled out other Democratic and Republican Senators who have suggested ways to weaken the impact of legislation sponsored by Sens. Kerry and Boxer on coal and manufacturing states.[27] You get the sense that the Chamber felt it was swimming against the tide. Its anti-climate legislation stance has led a number of its prominent member companies to leave the Chamber. Now, with a conservative Republican (Graham) getting behind the effort to reduce carbon emissions, the Chamber appears to have sensed it was the right time to shift its position.[37]
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry is working with South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham to build Republican support for the legislation by dangling provisions like increasing domestic oil exploration and expanding the use of nuclear power.[3] Democrats say that Republicans are just trying to delay progress on the legislation. "Their behavior challenges everything we are about," said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg. "It's almost like school children over there."[20]
Democrats control 12 of the seats. Republicans had hoped to stop the work session with a boycott by all seven of their members, citing a different committee rule stating at least two Republicans must be present for the panel to conduct business. [4] "Senator Boxer believes that it is in the best interests of the American people for Republicans and Democrats to work together toward independence from foreign oil, toward protecting our children from pollution, and toward creation of millions of clean energy jobs," Rafle wrote in an e-mail. "Therefore, she urges the Republicans to rethink their decision, and to join us at the opening of the markup on Tuesday morning."[29]
EPW Republicans, who ignored yesterday deadline for filing amendments, also now have until 5 p.m. today to submit any suggested changes to the bill. "We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side, and we really hope they'll return to the table," Boxer told reporters. "They have every reason to do that." Boxer added that she still retained the right to advance the 959-page bill (pdf) without Republicans, though she would not say how long she would wait before ending the markup.[21] Boxer extended the deadline for amendments and invited a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency to answer questions about the bill in a special Tuesday afternoon session of the committee. "We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side and we really hope they will return to the table," she said.[20]
Late Friday, Boxer released a new 959-page version (pdf) of the climate bill that will serve as the vehicle for the markup.[15] The thrust? The very things that make the climate bill politically feasible make it environmentally awful.[42] TonyQ82 said, "I have little hope for a strong climate bill given the depressingly toothless health bill that's about to pass.[31] If it takes building more nukes to get a climate bill passed, I say do it, and we'll (hopefully) figure out solutions to waste disposal and fuel security[31]
If that seems absolutely game-changing well, don't get too excited. The Chamber will continue to oppose bad policies that resemble the failed climate proposals of the past, such as bills that jeopardize American jobs, create trade inequalities, leave open the Clean Air Act, open the door to CO2-based mass tort litigation, and further hamper the permitting process for clean energy.[37] WHAT part of NO do you NOT understand BOXER. You think it's bad about the so called health bill, just wait for your MONEY GRUBBING for your croynies Energy bill.[20] The danger, said the reporter doing the story, was that it would stoke political enmity further down the road. Well, I think that's going to happen anyway, so Boxer may as well tell the Republicans to F off if that's the way they want to be, and just go ahead and pass the bill.[10] Republicans call it a '''nuclear option''' that will undermine committee traditions and put a bipartisan bill out of reach.[33] NPR did mention that there was an old rule that Boxer could invoke that would allow the bill to be voted out of committee with a simple majority.[10] Then Senator Boxer, it looks like we will just have to instantly recind your bill the moment you guys lose power sometime between Jan 2011 and Jan 2013.[14] No amendments can be taken up without GOP members present -- potentially derailing any plans to increase the bill's transportation funding. "If our colleagues would join us, the amendment process would go on as long as necessary to debate" proposed tweaks from both sides of the aisle, Boxer said.[6]
Sullivan said the Senate bill does not actually provide money for the EPA program, which would have to be approved by lawmakers under separate legislation.[35] Democrats will need bipartisan support to overcome a possible filibuster of the legislation when it reaches the full Senate.[13] Democrats have a 12-7 majority in the committee and enough votes to advance the measure to the full Senate.[25]
"The Senate is a unique place," said Bob Hurley, a top Republican EPW Committee staffer from 1980 to 1990. "You don't want to force something before it's ripe.[15]
"We want to move the process forward." Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the environment committee's ranking Republican, said he expects GOP senators to stay away, except possibly for one Republican to make the case for the boycott.[9] Republicans say moving forward without any GOP senators at the markup marks a major break with committee precedent.[14]
Republicans say Boxer can't do a markup without at least two Republicans present. Boxer countered that a provision would allow her to proceed as long as a majority of committee members are present.[7] Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer praised the letter as a "fundamental shift" for the country's most powerful business lobby. "This really is a game changer and I'm very pleased to report this," said Boxer. "This is a tremendous signal, I think to all of us on this committee. This is a message that they should not ignore."[27] The environment panel's chairman, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), kept the committee's meeting open in the hopes of breaking the stalemate.[6]
The greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast.[41]
The U.S. House bill calls for cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. [1] We have 10 years at most to make LARGE reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Even this bill is woefully insufficient.[10]
The Senate's slightly more ambitious bill calls for a 20-percent cut by 2020. Both bills would create a cap-and-trade regime, the government would set the total level of domestic emissions allowable and then allocate quotas to companies. Firms that emit less than their quota would be allowed to sell their surplus allocation to others that exceed theirs. Those in excess could also face fines.[1] Senate aides say the latest proposal encompasses several technical changes to the bill, as well as the byproduct of some last-minute negotiations with moderate Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).[15]
The Senate text -- which is likely to change considerably before a final vote -- also makes a push for nuclear energy research and training, and promotes natural gas as a clean energy source.[1] The senate needs serious reform. We shouldn't need 60 votes, especially not of patrician industry puppets in an unrepresentative body, to get anything done in this country. I think the only hope is of Obama's EPA picks up the slack our useless Congress leaves on this issue."[31]
Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program." Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.[41] KILL THIS SCAM BILL! Barack Hussein Obama, himself, said that electricity would "nessesarily skyrocket." This will TAX all forms of energy we use, electricity, gasoline, heating oil, etc. and will raise the average family of 4's bill by $4,000. per year, according to one article, and other's have it even higher.[3]
Under the cap-and-trade bills, all families will pay higher energy costs, which, according to the Department of Energy, could grow by 1,870 per household.[40]
Major elements of the bill being worked on by the House Financial Services Committee: Derivatives: The bill more tightly regulates derivatives trading, but provides exemptions for certain corporate dealings.[26] Pass the bill, even through reconciliation if necessary. It's time they showed the republicans and the american people who's in charge[31] Careful, now, you almost let it slip that the Democrats are stalling the bill to give the corporate media more time to stir up opposition.[22]
Ombudsman1, while you may think your knowledge of economics and politics is vastly superior, your characterization of 'lulu' is clearly an exercise in arrogance. If Republicans made any serious attempt to actually work with this administration, people wouldn't be so quick to condemn them. It seems however no matter what it is their plan is to say no. As long as they say no, they prevent the country from moving forward. Their plans are to tell all the gullible people out there that President Obama has done nothing, achieved nothing and has changed nothing. What they aren't saying is that they have blocked, thwarted and sabotaged everything this administration has tried to do. They will tell you that since everything is controlled by Democrats that they shouldn't have a problem passing anything. Again Republicans continue to do everything in their power to ruin our country and blame everyone but themselves for it. [29] Boxer said the panel would continue to meet, including the session with EPA experts later Tuesday. "We're going to just be here every day until they join us," she said. She also criticized the Republican boycott, saying, "The reason they give to not work on it just doesn't hold up to the light of day in fairness and objectivity."[28] Republicans boycott meeting on same day that Germany's leader calls for U.S. to push accord on greenhouse gases.[39] Regardless of the cooling and warming trends, which by the way, will alternate for the same reason most things in nature do until it gets moved in one direction - inertia and momentum. The planet is dynamic based on a lot of factors - not just the distribution of land on the surface and its topography, but the movement of its wind and water currents, multiple point and nonpoint sources of human and animal activity, ability to absorb and deflect heat (which is related to a number of things), and diversity in the climates and species that aid in augmenting of such heat and greenhouse gases. Just because it's big, doesn't mean it can't fall. 150 years ago, people thought they could build tall smokestacks to ease the downpour of soot and smoke onto their town - and they did, for the most part, but what they didn't realize at first was that they just transferred it elsewhere (or maybe they did, but didn't care because it wasn't their problem).[31] You think in your pathetic minds that global warming is "liberal", and thus wrong. How about one of 50 (at least) studies, just out, that tracks the climate for in this case 200,000 years. This one from the National Academy of scinces jouranl, perr reviewed, highly respected.[27] What would it take for you fools to understand just how much scientific evidence (that has zero to do with Al Gore) has accumulated JUST THIS YEAR that our climate is changing rapidly, right now. You think that by dredging up a few oil scientists and other assorted "experts" that find data that fits their bias, that global warming has be "disproved"? It seems only Christian conservatives are stupid enough to immediately swallow anything if it fits their stupid belief that global warming is not real.[27]
We are heating the planet. WE need to stop. Only extreme ideologues are fighting this. The same folks who brought us Iraq 2, destroyed the economy and ignored global warming for 8 years. It is ridiculous that we are dragging our feet on this. Anybody else remember American leadership? It requires leadership and sacrifice. Something these right wing extremists don't know anything. about. They just want to be spoon fed "cheap" energy while they guzzle their beers and destroy the planet for our children.[3] Merkel, the first German leader in more than 50 years to address Congress, made a plea Tuesday for efforts to curb global warming and to help forge a binding climate-change deal at an international meeting next month.[39] Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Congress 'we have no time to lose' in the effort to combat global warming.[16]
James Hansen, head of GISS/NASA, the father of global warming helped program the model which predicted a coming Ice Age in the 1970s. All this crisis politics is made all the more ludicrous by the fact that despite the supposed impossibility this could occur verified by every climate model in the world. the earth is now cooling.[3] WOW!! The climate changed since yesterday. Ridiculous? Of course! But, Al Gore expects you to think that way! The world temperature has gone down the past ten years children! Which is why this Marxist movement changed the name from "Global Warming".[31] "To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.[27]
@International ProblemI think as more and more countries implement a carbon tax of their own, a global carbon tax may just be the solution to global climate change.[42] Such as the "cooling" trend? First, the data from "cooling" comes from satellite collection, usually in the upper atmoshpere. "Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009.[27] That's the argument of a pair of outspoken EPA attorneys, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel. They've been criticizing orthodox approaches to climate change for a while now; the latest salvo came over the weekend in a Washington Post op-ed.[42] OK supergenius, why don't you post some of your "facts" on how climate change is a hoax. or you could just explain that everything is fake and made up by liars some more.[31]
Dealing with climate change is just one of the big-picture challenges facing Washington.[42]
"Don't Cap Our Future" is the message that Farm Bureau members across Wisconsin will be sending our U.S. Senators because the climate legislation is a bad deal for our country. [40] Two weeks ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced its support for sweeping climate legislation.[37]
_European Union leaders, also meeting with Obama at the White House, pressed anew for U.S. action. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters that he was worried about the progress being made ahead of the Copenhagen conference and called a climate agreement "a defining moment" for this generation of world leaders.[17] The aura of Chicago politics drifts over the capital like a smog. Ironically, the nasty assaults may be calculated to offset a growing view that the president is not tough enough to stand up to his detractors. He already looks weak as he '''dithers''' on Afghanistan, repeatedly blames George Bush for his problems and kow-tows to foreign leaders while apologizing for our nation'''s past. Surely, though, it will not help Obama if the country begins to suspect the president is not his own man. Being seen as a follower in his own White House will surely magnify an unhealthy aura of inconsequence. Obama risks inheriting yet another problem left behind by President George W. Bush. -- For years, those on the left portrayed Bush as the willing puppet of political advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney.[20] A 2001 Time magazine article described Rove as '''the busiest man in the White House. It was Rove who shaped the agenda, message and strategy that got Bush ''' the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times ''' into the White House.''' They might want to reprise that story; Obama'''s credentials set new records.[20]
Submitted by twas_was on November 3, 2009 - 3:34pm. I realize this is the House Republicans and not the Senate Republicans, but see this link. [38] Why be surprised when Democrats in the Senate apply similar tactics and completely dismiss Republican participation.[14]
What else is new? Shutting out the Republicans is standard operating procedures for Democrats. They apparently forgot how Republicans under that evil Newt Gingrich bent over backwards to try to accomodate and be fair to Democrats after they lost their 50 year majority. Predictably, when one bends over, they get what they get.[14] Isn't it odd that you can't buid a road, a dam, or a power plant without years of exhaustive study by the EPA. Where is the study of the impact on the nation in this instance? She looks forward to working with Republicans if they bend over and grab their ankles.[13] Republicans spent the past eight years destroying our economy. Now they want to stunt our growth as other nations race to emerge leaders in clean energy and technology.[3] Many Republicans deride the cap-and-trade system at the heart of the legislation's heart as a job killer and energy tax hike.[26]
An exception could allow the committee to proceed without any Republicans, according to committee staff members.[28] A committee Democratic aide, who asked not to be identified, cited Senate rules saying that Tuesday's committee session could occur if at least 10 of the 19 members attend.[4] The Obama administration and Senate leadership have tried to broaden the tent by making the national-security argument for the climate bill'without too much success.[42] The partisan power play could also further marginalize Boxer, who considers herself one of the lead environmental voices in the Senate.[14]
To bring on Republican support, the duo proposed incentives for new nuclear power, offshore oil drilling and "clean coal" technology.[12] John Holdren, president Obama's new Energy Czar was the author of a book titled Global Ecology in which he warned of the impending Ice Age in which there was a "real danger' of ice increasing to the point that Arctic ice could slip off and cause a tidal wave that would destroy low lying coastal areas around the globe. He said it was imperative that global populations be reduced to forestall the cooling. Today he has adopted the theory of man made warming and advises that we must reduce world populations to save the planet from catastrophe.[3] Russia announced it will support a global climate deal only if all major industrialized nations sign up and if the capacity of Russia's giant forests are taken into account, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday.[7]
As much as Gore'''s made now, it is going to be a small potatoes compared to what he is going to make in five years if all these new carbon trading mandates go through. Worth $1 million just 9 years ago and now worth over $100 million.Yep he cares for climate allright. As long as it's GREEN money.[27]
Whitehouse also pointed out that it would be difficult to conduct a full analysis of a bill that will still be changed in the markup process. [22] The Democrats on the panel alleged that the boycott is pure partisan politics, rather than a desire for substantive debate. "The 'Party of No' not only doesn't want to be productive, they don't want to look productive," said Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), to a role of empty Republican seats across the room.[22] An emotional plea for action by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in an address before Congress was met with silence from most Republicans, while Democrats stood and applauded.[24]
Democratic leaders, along with the Obama administration, are attempting to persuade at least six Republicans to vote in favor by compromising on nuclear plants.[7] Republicans rejected that logic. "I don't recall finding meaningful solutions with incomplete information and stark partisanship," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who explained his party's objections before departing, leaving the hearing room devoid of Republican senators.[36]
The image of Rove and Cheney directing traffic for an inadequate president was one of the most enduring of Bush'''s presidency. Their power undermined Bush'''s authority and worse, made him look simple. Nothing could be more damaging for Obama, who is assumed by his fans to be an intellectual giant when compared to George W. As the public starts to question how much time the president is spending on fund-raisers (26 events since taking office compared to only 6 for G.W. during the same term in office) or on his golf (24 rounds so far-- tying G.W.''' s entire presidency), they may also ponder who'''s doing the real work when the president goes AWOL. [20]
SOURCES
1. Climate change bill faces US Senate test - Developmental Issues - Environment - Home - The Times of India
2. AFP: Partisan feud clouds fate of US climate bill
3. Senate panel faces partisan climate war - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com
4. Senate panel tries bypassing climate bill boycott | Politics | Reuters
5. Partisan divide paralyzes climate debate - Total Buzz - OCRegister.com
6. Senate Democrats Poke Holes in GOP's Climate Change 'Boycott'
7. US Climate Legislation Probably Doomed
8. GOP Senators Warn Boxer on Climate-Bill Strategy - WSJ.com
9. The Associated Press: GOP senators balk on votes on climate change
10. Graham: I Understand The Concerns Of Republicans Boycotting Climate Hearing | TPMDC
11. Republicans Boycott Climate Change Legislation, Democrats Go Ahead Anyways | Texas GOP Vote
12. 2nd UPDATE: US Chamber Backs Most Of Kerry-Graham Climate Plan - www.capital.gr
13. GOP warns Boxer on climate bill - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com
14. Sen. Barbara Boxer considers climate power play - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com
15. Boxer Pushes Ahead With Climate Markup Tomorrow; GOP Still Plans to Boycott - NYTimes.com
16. EU urges US climate plan as GOP boycotts Senate panel vote - The Boston Globe
17. The Associated Press: Climate debate has rocky start for US Senate panel
18. Senator Boxer endangers her own climate bill in face of GOP boycott
19. FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - Republican boycott delays climate bill
20. Barbara Boxer offers olive branch to GOP - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com
21. Boxer Invites EPA In for Questions About Climate Bill - NYTimes.com
22. Republicans Bail on Climate Markup | Mother Jones
23. Republicans To Boycott Climate Bill Work Session - WSJ.com
24. Climate debate has rocky start for US Senate panel - AP Business - Ledger-Enquirer.com
25. The Associated Press: GOP senators absent at start of climate debate
26. Senate Republicans boycott climate bill - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com
27. Chamber pushes 'bipartisan' climate bill - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com
28. Republicans boycott Senate panel debate on climate change bill - CNN.com
29. Capitol Briefing - Republicans to boycott climate bill markup
30. Hoosier Ag Today - News
31. No partisan climate change on warming bill - dot.comments
32. Senate Republicans boycott climate meeting -- latimes.com
33. Republican Senators boycott debate of climate change bill | csmonitor.com
34. Chamber Of Commerce Tells Senate They Are Willing To Work On Climate Change Talk Radio News Service
35. Senate climate bill boosts natural gas outlook | Reuters
36. Senate Republicans boycott meeting on climate change legislation
37. Chamber of Commerce Endorses Climate Legislation For Real « The Washington Independent
38. GOPs pitiful boycott of Senate climate bill | Midwest Voices
39. Senators wrangle over climate bill
40. The Dunn County News Online - Our Front Page
41. You need eyes in the back of your head - Fox 4 KC Community Blog post - Working For You
42. If Cap-and-Trade is So Terrible, What's the Alternative? - Environmental Capital - WSJ
43. Republicans Plan To Block US Climate Vote This Week - WSJ.com
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on EU urges US climate plan as GOP boycotts Senate panel vote by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
