Reid between the lines

Will Senate leadership crack the whip on the climate bill? 4

In the weeks since the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, it’s become clear that the bill was approved only because of some serious arm-twisting by Democratic leaders. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) personally badgered wavering Democrats, even going so far as to pull one representative out of rehab so he could vote for the bill. Even with serious coercion from leadership, the House bill scraped by, with a vote of 219 to 212.

It doesn’t look likely that we’ll see the same hard-nosed approach in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been downplaying the majority’s ability to push through their agenda and even admitting that he’s “not very good at twisting arms.” The two leaders’ approaches are a world apart.

Let’s look at Pelosi first. The Hill has a fantastic account of just how serious Pelosi was about getting the bill passed:

Pelosi had publicly expressed confidence that the legislation, which she has repeatedly referred to as her flagship issue, would pass.

But privately, Pelosi knew she had few, if any, votes to spare. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) was pulled out of rehab to register his “yes” vote. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), recovering from back surgery, was seen walking gingerly before the vote.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), whose wife had pleaded guilty to bribery charges on Friday in Detroit, was in the lower chamber and ultimately voted for the climate change bill.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) was getting married the next day and needed to sign papers to resign her House seat after being confirmed by the Senate on Thursday for her new job at the State Department. Tauscher not only was in the House on Friday, she served as the presiding officer of the heated and partisan debate.

The only Democrat who didn’t vote was Rep Alcee Hastings (Fla.). Hastings, co-chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, was in Albania on Friday as an election observer.

And here’s Politico‘s account of how Pelosi targeted New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt:

One of Pelosi’s first targets was Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), a key fence-sitter who wanted more money generated from the carbon trading to be directed to the research and development of green technology.

Pelosi talked to him again and again, but he wouldn’t budge. Her message to him was the same as it was to others: It wasn’t worth voting against the bill because of what wasn’t in it. According to witnesses, Pelosi perched herself on the arm of Holt’s chair and went nose to nose with him for a half-hour warning him that his no vote could scuttle the entire climate change effort—and that liberals would have another chance to make their case once the bill came back from the Senate.

Around 2 o’clock, he became a “yes.”

Reid seems far less willing than his House counterpart to play hardball to get a climate and energy bill passed.  Here he is in The New York Times discussing the Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority and why it won’t guarantee that the Dems’ agenda passes this year:

“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”

And this, from a recent Congressional Quarterly profile:

Reid says he expects the tactic of gentle persuasion to work best, given the size of his Senate Democratic flock and the political divergences within it. “I don’t dictate how people vote,” he said in an interview this month. “If it’s an important vote, I try to tell them how important it is to the Senate, the country, the president ... But I’m not very good at twisting arms. I try to be more verbal and non-threatening. So there are going to be—I’m sure—a number of opportunities for people who have different opinions not to vote the way that I think they should. But that’s the way it is. I hold no grudges.”

Senate leaders have postponed debate of a climate bill until September, in order to buy more time to persuade apprehensive Democrats. But when the bill comes up, will Reid actually crack the whip?

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:22 am
    13 Jul 2009

    Kate, do you think Boxer's zeal for the issue makes up for any of this?
  2. Royal Enfield's avatar

    Royal Enfield Posted 11:18 am
    13 Jul 2009

    Reid may hold no grudges, but if this process falls through because he can't do his job out of some fear of alienating his colleagues - future generations will most certainly hold a grudge against him.
  3. mmooney Posted 12:05 pm
    13 Jul 2009

    I'm anxious to see how, if at all, Reid's results differ from Pelosi's.  Pelosi clearly went scraping for each and every last vote and for her efforts squeaked by with almost 100% partisanship.  If the "cooler heads will prevail" axiom is correct, a less confrontational style might actually yield better (not weaker) collective legislation.However, I doubt many green hardliners will like the risk this perceived weakness poses, namely that of conservatives stealing legislative lunch money and walking over any attempt at real progress.Hopefully without all the district-level special interests of the House, the enormity and necessity of strong action will empower more bi-partisanship (if that's not mutually exclusive from a strong bill).Otherwise, if the Senate fails, a Type A ball-buster is the best hope we've got.
  4. EBJSCIENCE Posted 9:58 pm
    16 Jul 2009

    I don't understand why we want to shove through a bad bill that will make us feel better, but will cost us alot of jobs.  Cap & Trade is a bad idea, it will reduce pollution in America, but those companies will just move overseas.   If we cause the cost of manufacturing to go up in the US, then those industry that manufacture goods under our environmental policies will move their facilities to country like China, India, Vietnam that don't have very good policies in place for polution and we will make the problem worse for the world.  Beside the fact that we will put more Americans in the unemployment line.  The solution has to be global so that companies can't just pickup and move to where the cost is lower.   We are spending too much time, money and energy on global warming when the real problem is other forms of pollution.  I looked at a satellite image of the world that showed the pollution being spewed in the air and there were pockets in the US that had high concentrations,  but China & India was blanketed in polution emissions.  We should be focused on tighten restriction on emissions in America, with regulations, not with Cap & Trade, it is just a bad idea.  At the same time we need to figure out a way to pressure these polluting country into cleaning up their polluting of our planet.  Did anyone see the Olympics, the pollution in China is unreal.  We don't want to do anything that would cause more of our industries to outsource to China.  Maybe we could add more tariff's to China & India's imports to try and force them into cleaning up their industries.   We don't have the influence we should have over China because we owe them around 15% of our national debt.  They may soon be telling America what to do because of our stupid over spending by Congress and our Presidents.  Some of you may not like this next statement, but President Obama is weaking our enconomy with these deficit budgets.  We are headed toward bankruptcy and we will not have the money to make the changes that are need to improve the environment.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement