by Congressional Quarterly

emocrats and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works panel tried Tuesday morning to overcome a partisan standoff that could derail a major climate bill even before the committee votes. But despite tentative overtures by each side, the feud appears to be continuing. Committee Republicans followed through on a threat to boycott Tuesday morning’s session, saying they won’t begin work on the bill until they see a full cost analysis of the measure, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions and establish a market for trading government-issued pollution allowances. Chairwoman Barbara Boxer , D-Calif., appears ready to carry through on a threat to break with normal procedures and move the bill through committee without them – a move the panel’s ranking Republican, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, called a “nuclear option.” One Republican, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, did appear at the committee meeting, offering a lengthy plea to Boxer to delay the markup until the EPA completes a complete cost analysis that it says would take about five weeks. “This is not a stalling tactic,” he said. “It is not a ruse to delay marking up a climate bill. This is an attempt to get the best information about a bill that will affect the entire country.” But Boxer and other committee Democrats were unmoved, arguing they have already provided more than enough analysis of the legislation. The EPA, Congressional Budget Office and Energy Information Administration have all produced lengthy cost analyses of the House-passed climate bill, which Boxer called “90 percent the same” as the Senate bill. Sheldon Whitehouse , D-R.I., said, “we are very close to a completely accurate estimate. People might say, ‘Why not wait?’ Because as soon as you amend it, you change it again. What are they going to do, wait five weeks to analyze each amendment?” Boxer told the committee that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., has promised a full, detailed cost analysis of the final climate change bill that he will assemble from versions approved by the Environment committee and other Senate panels.

Subscribe to CQ Midday Update »
Subscribe to C-SPAN Alert! »

   by Congressional Quarterly

Partisan politics threaten to derail progress on a Senate climate change bill, even before the first committee markup. Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee say they will carry through on threats to boycott markups on the bill, which panel Chairwoman Barbara Boxer had wanted to begin Tuesday. The Republicans — led by Oklahoma’s James Inhofe, the Environment panel’s ranking GOP member and the Senate’s most vocal climate change skeptic — say they will not be present at the Tuesday session. Because two members of the minority party must attend in order for a markup to proceed, Boxer has scheduled a “committee business meeting” — an apparent procedural gambit designed to allow work without a GOP quorum. “The committee Republicans should rethink their approach. As long as they refuse to come to work, they are not participating in one of the most important issues facing our generation,” Boxer said in a statement Monday. “We urge ranking member Inhofe, with the utmost respect, to bring the committee Republicans back to work on this issue. We will give them the opportunity, as we proceed this week, to reconsider their decision. We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this committee.” The panel has a 12-7 Democratic majority and can easily approve a bill without any Republican support. But observers say the development of a partisan rift so early in the legislative process could threaten the bill’s prospects on the Senate floor, where it is unlikely to pass without some Republican support. “It’s not the best gesture,” said Chelsea Maxwell, a partner at the Clark Group LLC, an environmental lobbying firm, and a senior climate adviser to former Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va. (1979-2009), last year’s lead Republican cosponsor of a Senate climate change bill. “It’s going to make it very difficult to convince the fence-sitting Republicans that they will be treated with respect if they come to the table,” she said. “It’s going to hurt things,” said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski , a moderate Democrats are likely to court. “What’s needed is a serious debate and a look at all the issues. Sen. Boxer’s way of going about this is not winning any converts.”

Democratic Split on Abortion is Obstacle to Health Bill

October 30, 2009

   by Congressional Quarterly

A showdown is shaping up among Democrats as abortion foes press House leaders to change the health care bill to explicitly ban abortion funding, or at least permit a floor vote on the issue. The effort led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and Daniel Lipinski of Illinois could have far-reaching implications for the fate of the legislation when the House takes up the health care overhaul late next week. Stupak, who has been at the forefront of a group of several dozen anti-abortion Democratic dissidents, said he would likely vote against a rule providing for floor action on the health care overhaul bill if party leaders do not come his way. “I’ve got to have somewhere to responsibly express my opinion and that of my district,” Stupak said. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland points to the abortion disagreement as perhaps the most important unresolved issue as he prepares to move the measure to the floor. Stupak said he would look for ways to work with Republicans, if necessary, and moderate senators including Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to override the decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., to omit an outright ban on abortion funding from the legislation she unveiled Thursday. The anti-abortion Democrats want to win language that would essentially extend the existing abortion funding ban known as the “Hyde amendment” to the new and expanded programs that would be created by the health care overhaul. The language for the current abortion funding ban was developed by the late Rep. Henry J. Hyde of Illinois (1975-2007). Mindful that abortion is a politically divisive issue within her caucus, Pelosi and her leadership team have sought to promote a compromise, but the anti-abortion Democrats consider it to be too weak. The compromise language is similar to current restrictions on the use of federal Medicaid funds. The provision would ensure that federal dollars are kept in separate accounts when they flow into health insurance plans, and that federal accounts could not be used to fund an abortion.