Lieberman-Warner Day: Maybe Next Year?
The U.S. Senate Monday began tackling legislation to curtail the nation's heavy carbon footprint but signs pointed toward a tough go for the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (see also a summary of the bill). One of those negative signs: A veto threat from President Bush.
Nevertheless, the debate might offer a preview for a renewed attempt next year, when a new occupant of the White House presumably will be someone more likely to be sympathetic to such a bill. All three major presidential candidates support the idea of a cap-and-trade system for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Such a system is the centerpiece of the Lieberman-Warner measure.
And supporters, including co-sponsor, Sen. John Warner, R-Va. (pictured), speaking at a Washington news conference, put on a show of optimism. Warner and his co-sponsor, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., also backed changes that could help boost nuclear power. Warner refused to concede defeat before any vote was cast:
"I'm an old football player. I never had a coach try to tell me what do we do if we lose. I'm going in with the concept we're going to win. I'm going to keep my shoulder to wheel until the final vote is taken."
The legislation aims to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide by about 70 percent by 2050. As Climate Law Update has reported, the costs of the bill have been the subject of much debate, with opponents criticizing its supposed impact on society. Environmentalists have countered that doing nothing would also produce catastrophic economic consequences.
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a chief proponent of the latest version of the bill, Monday trained her most critical comments on the current administration. In a statement the California Democrat ripped Bush for opposing the measure as a sop to the petroleum industry. Said Boxer:
"Just when we finally have a chance to get off of Big Oil and foreign oil, you can count on the Bush administration to fight us every step of the way."
Late Monday, the bill cleared a procedural hurdle when the Senate voted to allow debate but The New York Times reported that meant little in the overall scheme of things. The paper noted that opponents, many of whom focus on the measure's cost, could be hoping to use the Senate proceedings to embarrass supporters at a time of rising energy prices.
Earlier in the day, Bush ripped the measure in remarks to economists:
"Today the Senate is debating a bill called the Warner-Lieberman bill, which would impose roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the America economy. There's a much better way to address the environment than imposing these costs on the job creators, which will ultimately have to be borne by American consumers. And I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans."
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that if the bill were pass "in its current form, the president would veto it." The measure, she said, "would really damage our economy" and threaten to send jobs overseas. She said the president hadn't yet seen a cap and trade system in Congress that he could support. Also during the day, White House officials released a "Statement of Administration Policy" which formally put forward the veto threat.
The debate on the bill began as many businesses, and lawmakers, appeared to be split. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Boxer released a series of statements of support for the legislation, including such big names as Alcoa, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, FPL Group and General Electric, among others. Also on the list were major elements of the AFL-CIO, environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as religious organizations and high-profile government officials such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But both The New York Times and the Washington Post also described significant divisions between industries. One key issue, according to the Times, is how "allowances," or credits -- permits allowing a certain amount of gases to be emitted -- would be allocated, whether for free or at a cost. That's been a big issue for some time, as Climate Law Update has reported previously, most recently in connection with another bill newly introduced in the House.
The Post reported that even supporters of the bill "say that there is little chance that it will win Senate approval," to say nothing of getting by the House or Bush's veto pen. The paper quoted one undecided Democrat as characterizing this week's debate as "a dress rehearsal for next year."
And then there's the question of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for president who, despite advocating a cap and trade plan, has been reported to be wavering on the bill, apparently because it does too little for nuclear power. Lieberman said in the end he believes McCain will vote for the bill.
But getting his vote also creates a delicate balancing act with other senators, including Boxer, who suggested at Monday's news conference with Lieberman and Warner there's only so much she'd accept in terms of helping the nuclear industry. Provisions aimed at boosting training for workers and promoting domestic production of plant components, she indicated, would be all right. Warner also highlighted those areas in describing his amendment.
Said Boxer:
"John and Joe feel they need to stay on this bill. They need a certain amount to stay on it and I need a certain amount not to get off it. So we're looking for that sweet spot of legislation and we're very hopeful we can do it."
Lieberman said he believed the proposed pro-nuclear provisions, which he also backs, would not drive Boxer away from the bill. Lieberman expressed confidence the bill would get more than 50 votes but that it would "be hard" to get 60, the magic number required to shut off debate.
(Photo credit: Office of Sen. John Warner, R-Va.)
