how will key senators vote on a climate bill?

Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) 2

bob corkerBob Corker

Sen. Bob Corker came out swinging against the climate bill that the House passed in June.

“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008.  “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”

Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.

Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.

“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.

Climate CitizensTrack the debate and take action >>>

When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”

His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”

So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress.  Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

 

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 8:25 pm
    31 Jul 2009

    Sen Corker makes absolute sense.Every dollar goes back to the American people.This insures that it is at least a tax, and not just a pillaging the American consumer, like so many other Warren G. Obama schemes.
  2. pdq1966 Posted 9:57 pm
    02 Aug 2009

    I agree with Sen. Crocker about the carbon tax approach because I really don't believe that a carbon trading system can be constructed that will be able to be fair, accurate, and minimize "double counting".  A carbon tax would take care of all this by taxing non-renewables from the beginning.  I am, however, confused how this will be returned to the "American People".  If refineries or coal power plants are being taxed for their emissions they will have to transfer the increase to their customers in order to maintain a profit.  They simply supply the users with what they demand.  The only way that they can really reduce their carbon footprint is to install alternative methods of energy generation and reduce the overall usage of fossil fuels.  They will succeed in both given increased cost for energy and additional requirements set by the government.  Giving all the taxes back to the people would mean that nothing changes.  People pay the same for fuel (although indirectly) because they received the money back eventually.  It sounds like what Sen. Crocker wants is no change at all.  The tax money needs to be put back into the renewable energy sector and/or given back to the fossil fuel mining and refiners to only be used for improving emissions. 

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?

Series Intro
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) 0
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) [UPDATED] 2
Mark Begich (D-Alaska) 1
Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) 0
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) 2
Roland Burris (D-Ill.) 0
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) [UPDATED] 1
Robert Casey (D-Penn.) 0
Susan Collins (R-Maine) 1
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) 2
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) 2
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) 1
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) 1
Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) 1
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) 1
Al Franken (D-Minn.) 3
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) 0
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) [UPDATED] 2
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) 1
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) 0
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) 5
Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) 1
Mary Landrieu (D-La.) 0
George LeMieux (R-Fla.) 0
Carl Levin (D-Mich.) [UPDATED] 0
Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) 0
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) 1
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) [UPDATED] 5
John McCain (R-Ariz.) 2
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) 1
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) [UPDATED] 3
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) [UPDATED] 2
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) 0
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) 1
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) 1
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED] 1
Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) 1
Jon Tester (D-Mont.) 1
Mark Udall (D-Colo.) 1
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED] 2
Mark Warner (D-Va.) 0
Jim Webb (D-Va.) 1
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) 1
Advertisement