Cross-posted from: here
In my first post on the coming climate legislation battle in the Senate, I focused on a myriad of suggestions on how both the politicians pushing legislation as well as environmental activists and organizations could work to get a stronger bill. Despite the monumental challenge of getting to 60 votes in the Senate, as I said in the first post which I won’t repeat in depth here, there are advantages in terms of how to increase the pressure on Senators that we didn’t have in the House. However that isn’t the focus of this post. This post basically shows that absent a much stronger and smarter mobilization in the Senate, there will need to be wheeling and dealing done by President Obama, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, along with top Democrats.
As a disclaimer I will say that the “pick your poison” scenario I lay out at the end is not one that I would like to see. It is simply a look at what it’s going to take to get 60. Another disclaimer is this is a long post, so bring a snack.
The first thing to note is some good news. Although multiple committees are going to be working on this bill, a major architect of the provisions will be Boxer’s Environment and Public Works(EPW) committee which she chairs. While the Energy and Commerce Committee which produced much of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House was loaded with corrupt Democratic lawmakers from fossil fuel intensive states, EPW’s Democrats are more progressive and in more coastal states. As a result, you’re going to see a stronger bill come out of EPW. I was in a lobby meeting with my US Senator Ben Cardin’s Projects Director, and Cardin himself stopped by. The sentiment from them was that we should expect a stronger bill coming out of their committee, and the real fight will come on the Senate floor to hold onto as much of it as possible. I know that office expressed desire in stronger short term targets, clearer language about consumer protection, and reestablishing the EPA authority to try and regulate CO2.
If you look at the members of the committee, I don’t see any of the 7 Republicans that would go along with a stronger bill, let alone any bill, so that leaves the 12 Democrats. Boxer can afford 2 defections. Of these Democrats, I wouldn’t expect the following to defect from a vote on a better bill “Barbara Boxer(CA), Thomas Carper(DE), Frank Laughenberg(NJ), Ben Cardin(MD), Bernard Sanders(VT), Amy Klobuchar(MN), Sheldin Whitehouse(RI), Tom Udall(NM), Jeff Merkley(OR), and Kristin Gillibrand(NY)”. You would probably have trouble with Max Baucus and Arlen Specter in getting them to support a strong bill, but those would be the two defections. I know I’ve heard concerns before about Gillibrand being a conservative Democrat, but that was when she represented a conservative Congressional district in New York. Now that she’s a Senator of a liberal state, I don’t expect any problems from her.
Basic takeaway point: Expect a better bill coming out of EPW. We need to push hard for the best bill possible as well, because if we can manage to get a great bill coming out of this committee, it serves as a much better starting point for negotiations on the floor than if we just copied Waxman-Markey.
Now is where the fun begins. The bill can only be as strong as the 60th Senator wants it to be. Time to make a list on who falls where. The 4 categories are “yes, on the fence, probably no, no”. I could have a “probably yes” section, but quite frankly if you can’t get the “probably yes” Senators, you’re not going to get the fencesitters, so I’m assuming those who would probably vote yes…vote that way. Let’s get the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ lists out of the way.
Yes(44): Akaka (D-HI), Bennett (D-CO), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA),Burris (D-IL), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Hagan (D-NC), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kaufman (D-DE), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobachar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (I-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Stabenow (D-MI), Udall (D-NM), Udall(D-CO), Warner (D-VA), Webb (D-VA), Whithouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR).
A few things to note from this. Stabenow and Levin are considered swing votes, but they are liberal democrats. Not only can they be whipped by leadership into voting yes, but they need all the support they can get from the Obama Administration for the automaker jobs in the state. They voted for cloture for last year’s climate bill as well. Michigan also went solidly Obama in 2008. These elbows won’t take much twisting. There’s a possibility Bill Nelson of Florida would be vote if there were provisions in the final bill to drill off of Florida’s coast. There’s a fear that Jim Webb and Mark Warner would cause trouble. In my opinion they’ll vote yes for the following reasons. Virginia went solidly Blue in 2008, Virginia is comparatively a low carbon state, and Webb voted for cloture on the 2008 climate bill. For why Kay Hagan of NC is there, check out an endorsement she received last fall from Environment North Carolina spelling out her record. Also, NC went Obama, she isn’t in a re-election year for 2010, and comparatively NC is a low-carbon state. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico has been considered a potential troublemaker, but his rhetoric on global warming legislation, on introducing his own legislation in the past, on trying(although doing a bad job) of getting an energy bill out of his committee that invests in renewable energy, Bingaman also holds a blue state, takes large amounts of money from low-carbon energy industries, and his environmental record has become quite progressive over the past few sessions of Congress. He also voted for cloture on Lieberman-Warner in 2008.
No(34) : Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Graham (R-SC), Enzi (R-WY), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchinson (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Wicker (R-MS).
The explanation I’ll offer here is for including Judd Gregg of NH, a blue state, into the definite no category. Before Obama nominated Gregg for a cabinet position(which he refused), Gregg was a moderate voice in the Republican p
arty, and he had supported earlier proposals by McCain on global warming. For whatever reason, Gregg has shifted significantly in the other direction since then, and if you look at his rhetoric here, and a criticism of him here, I consider Gregg hopeless. Another piece of explaining is Bob Corker, who in the past has spoken openly about cap and trade, but in the same article I referred to on Gregg, Corker was saying unless 100% of the revenue is returned to the American people(which won’t be happening) so government doesn’t grow a bit, the bill is a non-starter.
On the Fence (13) : Baucus (D-MT), Begich (D-AK), Brown (D-OH), Lincoln (D-AR), Johnson (D-SD), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R- AZ), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (D-PA), Tester (D-MT)
Probably No(9) : Byrd (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN) , Condrad(D-ND, Dorgan (D-ND), Landrieu (D-LA), Murkowski (R-AK), Lugar (R-IN), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-NE)
Just to do a bit of explaining of why certain people are where they are. Lets start with the probably no’s for Democrats. I didn’t put any Democrats in the solid “no” category since pressure from the party along with negotiations makes even a longshot a possibility.
Byrd of West Virginia is king-coal, and he has
blasted the Waxman-Markey bill for being too tough on coal. Longest shot there is.
Evan Bayh has
stated his problems with cap and trade. He also recently voted “no” on an energy bill coming out of Jeff Bingaman’s committee which had a measly 15% Renewable Electricity Standard(with efficiency built in), because it was too strong. He also comes from a red carbon intensive state.
Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan come from heavily red states(North Dakota) which have some of the highest carbon footprints per capita in the country. Conrad is already having fun blowing up Obama’s public healthcare option, they both opposed cap and trade through the budget reconciliation process, Dorgan voted against cloture for Lieberman-Warner. However North Dakota has massive wind potential.
Mary Landrieu is pretty terrible when it comes to clean energy issues. She voted with Bayh against the energy bill with the 15% RES, even though it opened up some more offshore drilling, which she loves. Landrieu also voted against cloture on Lieberman-Warner last year.
Claire McCaskill ticks me off, just because right after the Waxman-Markey bill passed, she
Twitters “I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri”. As if Waxman-Markey didn’t do enough for coal dependent states. Missouri gets 85% of it’s energy from coal and has the largest coal company there, Peabody, which has spent 10 million dollars on lobbying against climate legislation since 2008! She also said she thinks(hopes) the bill
sinks in the Senate. Even though she was a big Obama supporter, I can’t put her on the fence when faced with this rhetoric.
Ben Nelson is from Nebraska. The state is wayyy red. Also, a right wing group Americans for prosperity is
bragging about how Nelson’s staff e-mailed them to say that he is adamantly opposed to cap and trade.
As for the Republican “probably no’s” who you might think would be a flat-out no. I have Lisa Murkowski there since she’s introduced a cap and trade bill before(although it sucked), she had indicated some support for the one last year, but abstained from voting. Also, there have been numerous articles such as
this one that she wants to green her image and take a leadership role on clean energy and global warming. Alaska is one of the most vulnerable states to warming temperatures, and she believes greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Lastly, she recently voted for the crappy energy bill that came out of Bingaman’s committee(that most Republicans regarded as too strong).
You might be real surprised to see Dick Lugar there! So why do I have him there? A few reasons. One is he’s widely regarded as a pragmatic politician that is willing to cross party lines. Obama used Lugar as an example of his bipartisanship during the election. They appear to be on good terms. In the past, Lugar has
called for the US to return to the International Negotiating Table during the Bush Administration, he’s supported a
tax on gasoline to reduce our oil addiction, and
praised a campus for taking steps under the “President’s Climate Committment”. He believes greenhouse gas are causing global warming. Downside is he’s a Republican from Indiana, and he voted no on Lieberman-Warner last year. Maybe he’ll see the light this time? Check out
these recent videos, and the one below.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJVA4CCCevQ]
Onto the fence-sitting Democrats.
Max Baucus and Jon Tester are from Montana, a red state which is pretty coal intensive. They often fall in the middle when it comes to votes on major pieces of legislation. You’ll see both sides of Tester’s perspective when he says in
this interview “50% of that (points to light) comes right from coal. Of our electricity, of our energy. So it ain
