Here's an article out today from Roll Call ($ub. req'd), which has been covering Congress since 1955:
In the heat of Monday afternoon, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) fumbled with her kickoff speech on global warming legislation as she tried to wax poetic about the need to save the planet, and the United States, from environmental disaster.
Boxer couldn't find parts of her speech -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) leaned in to help at one point -- rifled through her notes, went off in several directions and even stopped to talk to her staff in the middle of the speech. Her disorganized comments might have gone unnoticed, but they seemed to symbolize the disarray that many Democrats say has plagued and will continue to afflict the Senate debate on climate change this week.
"We are about to take up the most important fight of our generation, and we have no strategy, no message and no plan to get out of this," one senior Senate Democratic aide said.
Another senior Senate Democratic staffer echoed those sentiments: "Everyone knows this bill is going nowhere. The president is opposed to it. The House is not inclined toward action on this, and now we're going to spend valuable floor time on a bill that's going nowhere ... while Republicans are champing at the bit to accuse Democrats of raising gas prices."
Aides also said some Democrats fear that having a global warming debate this year will only end up aiding the campaign of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who has broken with his party to support climate change legislation.
The furor in the Democratic caucus has been brewing for weeks, with Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.) and other Senators voicing their concerns in weekly Democratic luncheons. Their concerns include whether the party has laid the groundwork to win the public relations campaign as well as how to deal with politically difficult amendments offered by Republicans, a Senate Democratic source said.
And meetings of Democratic legislative directors as well as those of Democratic chiefs of staff on the bill recently featured sharp exchanges with Boxer's senior staff on the Environment panel, several sources said.
Even environmental groups are wary of bringing up the bill now.
"There is a political concern, with people asking why are we doing this now, gas prices are $4 a gallon, we're at the beginning of the summer driving season, why are we doing this when the opposition is going to say we're screwing the American consumer?" said a staffer at an environmental group backing the legislation.
It appears that the Democratic discord has less to do with the bill's specifics, the bulk of which most Democrats support, and more to do with the communications strategy -- or lack thereof -- employed to maximize any political gains if the bill fails to garner the 60 votes necessary to beat back a likely filibuster.
"This is what happens when the committee staff and the chairman get so deep into the weeds of the bill that they can no longer see the political realities," said a senior Senate Democratic aide.
"Boxer is walking us off a cliff," another senior Senate Democratic aide said.
Many Democrats across the ideological spectrum foresee a public relations disaster looming, given that whip counts show that not even a majority of senators -- less than 45 by most aides' counts -- are likely to vote for Boxer's substitute, which was authored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.).
Some Democratic aides said they fear that a lackluster vote could hinder what many foresee as the real debate next year, when either McCain or a Democratic president will be more favorable than President Bush to climate change legislation.
At a post-rally press conference Monday, Boxer acknowledged that there are "a lot of voices saying, 'Why now?'"
Asked what she is doing to assuage her Democratic colleagues' concerns, Boxer said she is using "intellectual argument -- debate like you do in the Senate, when you go to a very pressing issue and you make your arguments. ... At this point, my concern is just getting the bill out there. We've done that. From here on out, it's up to each senator to decide."
Adding to the fragile nature of the debate, Boxer said even the bill's sponsors could reject the measure during floor debate if certain amendments are adopted or provisions stricken.
Lieberman and Warner "need a certain amount to stay on it, and I need certain things to not get off it, and we're looking for that sweet spot," said Boxer, after being asked about the prospects for a Warner amendment on nuclear energy that she is likely to oppose.
Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has signaled a willingness to proceed with an open debate process that would allow Republicans to offer all manner of amendments, some Democrats are concerned that by bringing the bill to the floor, they will be playing into the Senate Republicans' hands on issues of rising gas prices and increased taxes.
Republicans have begun a drumbeat that the bill will spark dramatic price increases on gasoline.
"Democrats would love to bypass the economic portion of this debate and make it about who supports the environment, but Republicans will be focused on the effect this legislation will have on Americans' pocketbooks," one Senate GOP leadership aide said.
GOP Senators are preparing amendments that would undo the measure's mandates for cleaner energy if gas prices reach thresholds -- perhaps $5 a gallon or higher.
At some point -- possibly next Tuesday -- senior Democrats acknowledge, Reid might shut down debate on the measure by restricting Republican amendments and filing a motion to close debate.
Boxer and other bill supporters tried to swat down GOP arguments, estimating that gas prices would rise no more than 2 cents a gallon each year as a result of the measure. On Monday, Bush threatened to veto the bill in part because of its potential effect on gas prices.
"This is coming from the people who have given us nothing ... but eight years of higher gas prices," said David Sandretti, spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "They don't have any credibility on this point."
Despite the internal Democratic disputes, Members and staff are still trying to cobble together a communications strategy that will help them get their message out -- particularly the notion that passing a global warming bill will be better for Americans going forward than not acting to rein in pollutants and demand for gasoline.
In addition to Boxer's rally, Senate Democrats plan to hold daily events highlighting the divergent interests that have signed onto the bill. Today, for example, they plan to hold a press conference with business and labor backers of the bill. Wednesday's event will feature faith-based groups and representatives from the scientific community, while Thursday's event will seek to highlight the measure's importance to national security and technological innovation.
House Democrats, meanwhile, have been looking at the Senate action to help them determine whether that chamber will take up a climate change bill this year. Without a Senate catalyst and little enthusiasm for the legislation from House Republicans, House Democrats have slow-walked their bill behind the scenes and might wait until next year if the Senate shelves its effort.
I have heard similar concerns from a variety of progressives and Congressional staffers.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Carl Levin (D-Mich.) [UPDATED]
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Comments
View as Flat
ce1907 Posted 3:23 pm
03 Jun 2008
this is a predictable attack on behalf of big oil and coal and nukes (predicted, in fact)
part of a maneuver by Energy Comm working together with senior Dem staff AND Repub staff
the game is to embarrass the girl senator and build support in the caucus to move climate bills to the Energy Comm next year
that will mean less aggressive targets, safety valve, preemption, big CCS little alternative energy, etc
how hard is it to get a trade press rag like Roll Call to print gossip?
Until progressives recognize the special interests behind the Energy Comm (how hard can this be to figure out?), they will not even see what is happening in front of them
a power play is going on. it involves next year. and it is intended to move the climate bill far to the right
you think the Prez is going to ride to the rescue next year; the Prez will be along for the ride; the energy boys will control both the House and the Senate
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 6:10 pm
03 Jun 2008
Climate change sceptics, such as Nigel Lawson, are wrong when they question the science. But they will find a ready audience for their claim that the economics of limiting it are anyway unaffordable. The conditions are in place for climate change to slip behind jobs, growth and the cost of petrol as a priority. Cutting emissions will not win back Labour's lost voters in Crewe. But it must be done. This is the moment for courage. There are reasons to fear it may be lacking. --The Guardian, 26 May 2008
More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll. The survey also reveals that most Britons believe "green" taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes. --Colin Brown, The Independent, 2 May 2008
With a slowing economy, escalating food prices and energy prices climbing ever higher, you might think that Republican presidential candidate John McCain would be hesitant to endorse a European Union-style carbon emission trading scheme that seems likely to result in less economic growth, higher energy prices and higher food prices from increased biofuel demand. But that's because you don't know him as well as his daughter, Meghan McCain, who says he's totally freaking out over global warming. --John Carney, 12 May 2008
McCain's actual goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions - 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 - fall well short of the cuts that many climate scientists deem necessary to avoid a 2 degree C rise in temperatures above pre-industrial levels. And once that happens, we risk runaway warming as feedback effects start kicking in, and, from there, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, the works. --Bradford Plumer, The New Republic, 13 May 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:32 pm
03 Jun 2008
But as for "they can no longer see the political realities": Sadly, that sort of thing is typical, and maybe inevitable, in a democracy. And, sadly, this election year is looking to be one of those depressing episodes of failure, in the history of a (sometimes) great democracy.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:09 pm
03 Jun 2008
if this crop weren't ignorant future-blind doormats, the iraq invasion wouldn't have happened.
Permalink
Miles Grant Posted 9:15 pm
03 Jun 2008
I mean, "Senate GOP leadership aide"? Sounds a lot more credible than if she'd said "Joe Shmoe, chief of staff for McConnell or Inhofe," doesn't it? Nice that Emily Pierce is willing to give them cover.
http://www.nwf.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:20 pm
03 Jun 2008
There is nothing in it to defend except the vague notion of trying to address GHG climate change and soaring imported energy prices.
Vague notions won't lower gas prices or stop climate disaster. A clear plan is needed, to target scarce subsidy dollars to the right technologies, while withdrawing subsidies from oil, coal, agrizz, and nuclear industries to pay for it all.
It has to be tax neutral, no new taxes. That will keep gas prices from soaring due to energy policy reform.
This is a huge issue being handed over to Rove/McCain. We should benefit from this most powerful political issue, high gas prices. But with this ham handed, desperate move to back a bill orginated by a republican and a worse-than-republican traitor (Lie-berman), we are playing right into Rove's strategery.
Gas price swiftboating, get used to it. It will make the swing voters forget who has been responsible for miring the economy in debt to oil suppliers and oil war contractors.
This will be seen as a big loss for environmentalists and set the stage for the swiftboating. Beware. This is the same strategery used by the congressman from big auto to kill us.
He backed a boost in CAFE standards in order to kill the whole idea. Now GM is halting production of giant gas guzzlers on an emergency basis. Bottomline corporate energy policy is leading straight to economic disaster.
Cap and trade will raise energy prices and won't halt GHG disaster or soaring energy prices. It is the corporate/hedge fund bone hidden in this diversionary stew.
Wait for Barack to lead on energy. It is the only way to go now. Go for broke.
Meanwhile we need to get the really effective policy pieces to him, in an end run around the lobbyists swarming in to the feeding frenzy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:38 pm
03 Jun 2008
Pass it after you have the Presidency and a wider margin in the Senate.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 11:13 pm
03 Jun 2008
it goes through committee first
what committee?
the staging you see is to push the bill right
you do not understand: committee juris = policy
the girl senator is being assassinated by other Dems. it is orchestrated
do not be gullible -- as you usually are not
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:56 am
04 Jun 2008
This is the advantage of targeted, direct government investment in projects that directly lead to lower carbon emissions -- high speed rail, subways, bus rapid transit, yada yada -- plus, Berkeley-type financing of homeowner PV, heck, just put up wind farms, and take over the grid and build HVDC, etc. etc.
According to a study DR posted a while back, the public seems more open to investment (not "breakthrough" investment, investment) than carbon pricing.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:56 am
04 Jun 2008
This is what the global warming issue boils down to, folks, just as it does for every environmental and ecological issue. You prioritize either the Earth or money.
Senators and presidents are supposed to be leaders. While I realize that they're usually not, it is still infuriating to see and hear them pander to popular opinion when they should know better than average people who myopically can't see beyond their own selfish interests. What the public needs to be told is this:
"We've based this society on burning fuels in order to transport ourselves and goods long distances, and to create artificial energy for things from heating and air conditioning to lighting and computers, as well as other industrial processes needed to manufacture things. We now realize that burning fuels of any type, including biofuels, emits so much carbon dioxide that we are causing a significant warming of our planet that has already caused extinctions and desertification, and will be ecologically catastrophic if not reversed. For that reason, we need to substantially change our behaviors in order to greatly lessen the carbon dioxide that we emit. We will begin this transition with, among other things, a carbon tax. This tax will, unfortunately, cause the price of fuels to rise. We realize that many of you are struggling financially, but all we can do is to strongly advise you to organize your life so that you don't need to drive much or use a lot of energy: live near your job and grocery shopping, move into a smaller home if you live in a large one, properly insulate your home, move to warmer climates where you will use less heat and be willing to use fans instead of air conditioners, and invest in solar panels for your roofs."
For those who prioritize money over the Earth, someday they will be forced to eat, drink, and breathe their money. Unfortunately, so will the rest of the planet.
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:27 am
04 Jun 2008
Permalink