Is There a Tri-Partisan Path Forward for a Climate Bill?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


With the climate bill stalled in the Environment and Public Works Committee, a bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday announced that they’re working on an alternative path to passing legislation.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said they are meeting with fellow senators and with administration officials to work out a proposal on climate and energy legislation that they will hand over to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The proposal will incorporate the components of legislation being crafted within the various committees of jurisdiction, along with work with senators outside those committees.

Kerry emphasized that this process won’t replace the work being doneby the Environment and Public Works Committee, where chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is currently trying to work around a Republican boycott of the markup. “We’ll take the best of what Sen. Boxer produces and we will build on it,” said Kerry. “Our effort is to try to reach out to broaden the base of support beyond the six committees of jurisdiction.”

I don’t think this announcement is as big a deal as some have suggested. It has always been the case that Reid would have the ultimate authority to combine and tweak a final bill with the goal of garnering 60 votes. And in the weeks since Kerry and Graham coauthored their editorial calling for climate action, it has become clear that there is a separate track of negotiations occurring outside of Boxer’s committee, designed to appease senators who want a greater role for nuclear, coal, and domestic oil.

What is important is both the public appearance by Graham and the emergence of Lieberman as the third wingman. In his remarks, Graham seemed to distance himself from the Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee that are boycotting the markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill.”If you can’t participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?” said Graham.

But later in the day he sided with EPW’s Republican rebels. In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Graham joined with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine—all seen as potential “yes” votes—to endorse the call for further EPA analysis. “As Senators interested in a bipartisan approach to addressing climate change and energy independence this Congress, we have a keen interest in ensuring that cost estimates, models, and other data critical to the legislative process be made available to members of Congress and the public in a timely manner,” they wrote. “We cannot support legislation without this information.”

Lieberman has been working with other senators on his own, particularly on the nuclear issue, but this is his first public entry into the debate this year. Of course, Lieberman’s recent statements on health care have not made him the most popular legislator among Democrats, but he has a long history on climate issues dating back to the first climate bill in 2003, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. “He has all sorts of ability to bring people together,”  said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation. “He’s a great addition to the power team.”

While Lieberman might be able to help build bipartisanship, he’s not promising to make everyone happy. “I am prepared to say at the outset that’s going to mean accepting some parts of the bill that are not my first choice,” he said on Wednesday. “Each Congress will come back and fix, polish based on experience. But this is the session of Congress where we’ve got to get going.”

What happens now in the Environment and Public Works Committee remains unclear. It still has primary jurisdiction, but committee rules state that at least two members of the minority party must be present to begin a markup. Save quick appearances by George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) to make the Republicans’ complaints known, it’s been just the Democratic members and their staffers sitting around repeating, on a loop, that it’s a shame the other party isn’t present.

Boxer could technically circumvent the rules, but the fear is that doing so would increase the partisan divide on the issue and give senators a superficial, process-driven reason to vote against the bill. “I would never do anything that went up against the rules of our committee,” said Boxer. “That would be wrong.” Recess was called shortly before 6 p.m. on Wednesday. A Boxer staffer said they would be “continuing conversations” with members about how to proceed, but would resume the meeting on Thursday at 9 a.m.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate