Byrd, Brown Keys To Climate Fight; EPA Steps Up

Yesterday's release of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill found at least one surprising supporter - West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.

Senator Byrd put out a statement making surprisingly supportive noises, saying he’s “glad” that Kerry and Boxer incorporated his suggestions and promising to keep working on the bill with them. A Kerry aide says Byrd’s comments came after Kerry lobbied Byrd’s staff extensively in one-on-one meetings.

Now, I'd rather have the Senator from West Virginia who is physically able to perform - Jay Rockefeller criticized the bill - praising the bill, but if Byrd is reachable, that does widen the list of reachable Senators. The Hill reports that Sherrod Brown of Ohio could be a key:

The Ohio liberal has been working diligently behind the scenes on behalf of manufacturers, seeking concessions from two Democrats who share his views on most other policy matters [...]

For starters, he thinks the Senate climate change bill needs to invest significantly more to help U.S. manufacturers, which face a competitive disadvantage with companies in China and other countries with less strict environmental rules.

Brown wants Boxer to increase the size of rebates to manufacturers that consume large amounts of energy, and give more assistance to small- and midsized manufacturers trying to retool their businesses to compete in the clean-energy economy.

Perhaps most controversially, Brown wants the Senate to consider imposing tariffs on foreign competitors operating in countries with lax rules for greenhouse gas emissions.

“Carbon dioxide emissions expand if a company closes down in Toledo, Ohio, and moves to Shanghai, where the emissions standards are weaker,” he said. Brown describes this phenomenon as “carbon leakage.”

Democrats such as Sens. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) say they have the same concerns as Brown and acknowledge that he has been a leading advocate for industrial states.

“His voice on manufacturing is really important,” said Stabenow of Brown.

I'm actually pleased that there is a voice for manufacturing in the Senate, though I don't necessarily agree with all of Brown's proposals, many of which are admittedly parochial. But I strongly support carbon adjustment tariffs. It's just a fact that greenhouse gas emissions should be factored into the price of goods, and such a tariff would be a way to do that. If Wal-Mart sells me a set of tube socks for $2, the cost to the environment and eventual cleanup is far higher.

The good news yesterday is that the Obama Administration stepped up. The EPA issued a new rule on regulating greenhouse gases emitted at stationary sources, and it could prove a motivator for Congress to get something done.

Appearing at a climate summit in Los Angeles today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will announce the administration’s plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution, with or without the support of Congress. In May, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed global warming standards for motor vehicles, applauded by the auto industry. Under the rules of the Clean Air Act, when these regulations go into effect in March 2010, all major greenhouse gas polluters — from coal-fired power plants and oil refiners to methane-emitting landfills — are automatically subject to regulation:

Under EPA’s current interpretation of PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and title V applicability requirements, promulgation of this motor vehicle rule will trigger the applicability of PSD and title V requirements for stationary sources that emit GHGs.

Today’s proposed rule — which allows public comment until December — technically is a “tailoring rule” to limit regulation of global warming pollution to emitters of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, instead of the automatic statutory amount of 250 tons. This 250-ton standard would cover about four million businesses and homes — the “glorious mess” President Bush used as an excuse for his inaction. The EPA plans to raise the pollution limit to 25,000 tons, so that only 14,000 industrial pollution sources nationwide would be covered by the regulations, 11,000 of which are currently covered by the Clean Air Act permitting requirements already.

Raising that pollution limit means that churches or schools, who emit over 250 tons, would not be targeted. But it does mean that thousands of power plants will get permits showing they are working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That sets a date - March 2010 - for the fight. And Congress can either provide their own counterpart legislation or get out of the way. That's helpful to Kerry and Boxer's efforts.

Teddy's Replacement Coming Soon

The Massachusetts State Senate just passed the bill allowing for a temporary appointment to the US Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy. The Governor will sign and the Democrats will be back to 60 seats perhaps by the end of the week.

This is probably the best practice for Senate vacancies - a temporary appointment because of the disproportionate impact of losing one Senator out of 100, followed by a quick election within a few months. It ought to be the standard.

Most speculation on the seat has centered on former Governor Michael Dukakis, or someone with ties to the Kennedy family or Teddy himself, like a former staffer. At any rate, that vote will certainly be fairly Democratic.

Obviously this raises the possibility of demanding Democratic unity on allowing a final vote on health care to go forward, even if they don't approve of the final bill. There's the matter of Robert Byrd (who ought to resign and live the rest of his life in peace), but essentially, Democrats will have the votes to block a filibuster if they hang together. And if Harry Reid cannot figure out how to enable a vote the the overwhelming majority of his caucus supports, then he doesn't have any power whatsoever. Reid is still raising the possibility of reconciliation, but that's a bluff for Republicans. It's the Democrats in his own chamber who need the nudge, although perhaps reconciliation is a warning to them as well.

Uh-Oh

Robert Byrd is 91 and quite unwell. Ambulances raced to his house today because he got up too fast. Democrats may gain one seat in Massachusetts by the end of the week if the appointment law goes through, but Byrd has been in and out of hospitals for months and is rarely seen on the Senate floor.

Nobody wants to tell Robert Byrd to retire - he's been in the Senate since 1958 and he probably wants to die right there on the Senate floor. But for the good of the country he ought to resign and not have his illness affect the quality of life for millions of Americans. West Virginia allows for a temporary appointment, Governor Joe Manchin is a Democrat, and within a matter of days the Democrats could have 60 able-bodied members. But instead of that, and instead of coming up with a process where Byrd can vote by proxy, we are hampered with endless filibusters based on Robert Byrd's physical health, which I don't think was the founders' intentions.

A Small Victory

The F-22 fighter is built in 44 states. The military contractors who build it and provide supplies spend many millions in lobby costs. Armed Services Committee appropriators in particular get slathered in special interest money and reward their contributors with as many contracts as possible. The overall trajectory of military spending since World War II is that the military part of the budget is magic and we can spend whatever we want on it. As a result, we spend more on the weapons and tools of war than every other country on Earth, combined.

So it's not every day that a major weapons program gets phased out through the appropriations process. It happened today, as 58 Senators voted to cancel additional spending on the F-22 fighter, a plane which the Pentagon doesn't want, which the Air Force doesn't want, which hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and which has been found in tests to be vulnerable to rain.

It was a parochial vote that had more to do with whether a Senator's state builds major portions of the F-22 than anything else. And it will not signal any kind of near-term sea change in the military budget, which will increase this year. A lot of the F-22 money will just re-route into other fighters like the F-35 and unmanned aerial drones. But there's a symbolic significance here. The President and the Secretary of Defense took on the military-industrial complex by threatening to veto the entire defense bill if this funding stayed intact, and in this case they won. If we're ever going to break their stranglehold on the process, we have to win this kind of vote. Over time, we may even have a President that says "hey, it's kind of insane to spend more on the military than every other country combined" - don't laugh, it could happen - and by showing the ability to cancel weapons projects like this, it will be easier for that future President to maneuver. And I particularly like some of the language Obama used in his comments about this, saying that our budget is a zero-sum game and our "citizens lose" if more money goes to unnecessary weapons systems. With all the talk from the fiscal scolds, there is an opportunity to channel that toward a military budget full of bloat and waste.

It's a good first step, nothing more. But showing we can get by without weapons systems designed for the Cold War is important.

...some additional good news here. Though he voted against stripping the funding, Robert Byrd took a vote on the bill. We've been hearing with respect to health care that Democrats really only have 58 Senators, due to two ill members. Byrd is now back and voting. And you cannot tell me that wild horses could keep Ted Kennedy from a health care vote. The Democrats will have 60 votes. What they do with them is their choice.

MoveOn: Impeach Jay Bybee

Jay Bybee's attempt to exonerate himself for his crimes only succeeded in inspiring more activism around his impeachment.

Jay Bybee signed off on notorious Bush-era torture memos. And now? He's serving as a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, thanks to George Bush.

Jay Bybee showed no respect for our laws and isn't fit to be a federal judge. Can you sign this petition urging Congress to impeach Jay Bybee?

The President put it very plainly last night, perhaps more plainly than he'd admit.

"President Obama said, 'They used torture, I believe waterboarding is torture,'" Nadler said, speaking of Obama’s comments about his predecessors. “Once you concede that torture was committed, the law requires that there be an investigation, and if warranted, a prosecution.”

Those who would condone war crimes at this point look increasingly foolish. We are a nation of laws, and if you don't want a law prosecuted, you repeal it, but you cannot ignore it. I would refer these apologists to Sen. Robert Byrd, who knows a thing or two about the Constitution:

The recently leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as the four released memorandums from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), confirm our worst fears. These documents point to brutal, inhumane acts which were repeatedly carried out by U.S. military personnel, and which were authorized and condoned at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. These acts appear to directly violate both the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Spain and the United Kingdom have already initiated investigations of Bush Administration officials who approved these acts. The United States needs to investigate as well. To continue to ignore the mounting evidence of clear wrongdoing is a national humiliation [...]

The rule of law is not just a lofty concept to which we should aspire only when convenient. It is a fundamental principal upon which our Republic was founded, and it is the foundation of our free society. I understand the desire to look forward and to forge a new path on high ground instead of on the low road of the past eight years. But to use the need to move on as a reason not to investigate basic human rights violations is unacceptable. Excusing individuals at the highest levels of government from adhering to the rule of law, whether in wartime or not, is a dangerous precedent, for it undercuts the principle of accountability which permeates representative democracy.

We can start by ensuring that a violator of international laws and a moral reprobate is removed from the federal bench. Call and email Congress, particularly the members of the House Judiciary Committee, and ask them to open hearings.

House Judiciary Committee
John Conyers, Michigan	Howard Berman, California
Rick Boucher, Virginia	Jerrold Nadler, New York
Robert C. Scott, Virginia	Mel Watt, North Carolina
Zoe Lofgren, California	Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Maxine Waters, California	Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts
Robert Wexler, Florida	Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Hank Johnson, Georgia	Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Luis Gutierrez, Illinois	Brad Sherman, California
Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin	Charles Gonzalez, Texas
Anthony Weiner, New York	Adam Schiff, California
Linda Sánchez, California	Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Fl
Dan Maffei, New York	Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin	Howard Coble, North Carolina
Elton Gallegly, California	Bob Goodlatte, Virginia
Dan Lungren, California	Darrell Issa, California
Randy Forbes, Virginia	Steve King, Iowa
Trent Franks, Arizona	Louie Gohmert, Texas<
Jim Jordan, Ohio	Ted Poe, Texas
Jason Chaffetz, Utah	Tom Rooney, Florida
Gregg Harper, Mississippi

P.S. Patrick Leahy would like Judge Bybee to stop by the Senate for a little chat.

Budgeting Bytes

I suspect the President tonight will want to put the focus on the budget, which is this gigantic piece of legislation that expresses national priorities on a host of topics, but which has gotten scant attention in the age of bonuses and banks and bailouts. I must admit to a certain discordance with the Organizing for America effort to sign up pledges for the budget in the midst of the Geithner plan's release and the fury at Wall Street.

However, I do agree that we can't wait another second to move forward on these priorities. The situation with the banks will play itself out, but failing to invest in health care and energy and education for the future would be downright criminal and would actually deeply harm efforts at overall economic growth. We know the Republicans will oppose such a plan to help people who work for a living - it's their nature - but the bigger fear is that so-called "centrist" Democrats will do the same. Kent Conrad today already sounded like he's hacking away at the budget.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has been among those complaining about elevated levels of spending in the president's request. Yesterday, after meeting at the White House with Biden, Conrad said he has made "hundreds of billions of dollars of adjustments" to Obama's request in the budget proposal he plans to unveil today.

"When you lose $2.3 trillion on a revenue forecast, then you have to change and budget. And we have changed the budget," Conrad said.

Conrad said his proposal would trim Obama's spending request across the board to dramatically reduce future deficits. In 2014, for example, when the CBO predicts that Obama's request would produce a $750 billion deficit, or 4.3 percent of the nation's overall economy, Conrad said his proposal would generate a deficit of less than $600 billion, or just under 3 percent of the economy. Many economists consider a deficit equal to 3 percent of the economy to be sustainable, because at that level the nation's borrowing would not grow faster than the economy as a whole.

Administration officials signaled that the White House may be willing to accept significant spending cuts so long as the president's signature initiatives on health care, education and clean energy are preserved.

Congress writes the laws, so this isn't all that outrageous. And I agree with taking out the $250 billion dollar placeholder for future bailouts of the financial sector - if the Administration finds that necessary, they can make their case and earn it. But quite a bit of the Congressional Dems' reworking troubles me. First, they are reserving the right to lie:

On the alternative minimum tax, Spratt said the budget will not in later years incorporate Obama's assumption that the $30 billion-plus cost of fixing the AMT and instead assumes other revenues are raised to limit its reach.

"Other revenues" is Washington-speak for "we want to pretend that this will still bring in the same amount of money every year even though we'll get rid of it and not replace the revenue." I assumed that honesty would be the first thing to go in Obama's budget - it's too expensive.

Next, there's the big question mark of what items will fall under budget reconciliation. Already, cap and trade has been written out of that scenario, which is crucial because that was the mechanism for paying for Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax cuts for the middle class:

House Democrats won't advance President Obama's controversial global warming initiative under fast-track rules that could effectively cut Senate Republicans out of the debate, a top Democratic lawmaker said Tuesday.

The House will try to use special budget procedures to remake the health care system, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said Tuesday [...]

At issue is whether to advance controversial Obama initiatives under filibuster-proof rules in the Senate. Republicans say the maneuver would freeze them out of deliberations on such important topics, and Democrats like Conrad say it shouldn't be used for such complicated legislation. But the Democratic-dominated House wants to make sure Republicans don't hijack the legislation.

"Reconciliation is pretty well settled," Spratt said. "I think we'll have reconciliation (for) health care."

The terms of the deal have already been written on health care - Republicans can come to the table between now and September or they will be shut out of the deal. But cap and trade won't work the same way. The whole reconciliation process itself is byzantine and based almost entirely on the whims of Robert Byrd back in the 1980s. Really the Senate parliamentarian ultimately decides what becomes a subject for reconciliation, which is bizarre and no way to run a railroad.

Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule. It's the legislative equivalent of deciding a bill on penalty kicks.

What should not be missed in all this is the absurdity that is the contemporary Senate. You need 50 votes to pass a bill. You need 60 votes to overcome a parliamentary trick that allows 40 senators to talk about cheese whiz until everyone else heads home for the night. But some priorities -- deficit reduction and the budget among them -- were judged too important to face the filibuster. There was no particular rationale given for that shortcut, but the relevant senators have clung tightly to its terms. Last week, Sen. Robert Byrd, now in his late 80s, reiterated that reconciliation was "a process intended for deficit reduction," and using it for health reform and cap and trade "is an outrage that must be resisted."

But the reconciliation process has been used for plenty that did not reduce deficits. Both of President Bush's tax-cut plans traveled through the process. And the very senators who speak reverentially of the filibuster now, voted for reconciliation then. Judd Gregg, in fact, voted for reconciliation every time it was used in the Bush era.

The actual answer is to do away with the filibuster. The Senate GOP today threatened to tear down the chamber if health care or cap and trade are folded into the reconciliation process, so it's not like the minority has no recourse - they can use all the parliamentary maneuvers they want. But if we want to meet the tremendous challenges we face when an irrational minority abuses the lawmaking process, at some point we will need to allow the majority to rule.

Anyway, the President's presser starts shortly.

Teddy And Robert

This is all just coming in, but apparently Ted Kennedy went into convulsions at the Senate luncheon and was wheeled out into an ambulance. Then, Robert Byrd was overcome at the sight of Teddy, and HE had to be wheeled out.

Very sad, and hopefully everyone's OK. Teddy looked great this morning at the inauguration.

...Obama just confirmed that Kennedy was wheeled out of the room, and he said "a part of me is with him." CBS reports that he had a seizure.

Terrible.

...an "extended seizure," say news reports, that lasted for several minutes, and Kennedy was still in the midst of it as he was taken out of the chamber. Ugh.

...Senator Hatch followed Kennedy to the ambulance, and he says that by the end, Teddy was able to communicate. So that's a little better.

Committee Rumblings

The committee structure in the Senate is about to undergo a major overhaul, which is healthy. The chairmanships play a key role in shaping policy, and that's never been more important. In addition to Vice President-elect Biden leaving Foreign Relations, and Joe Lieberman about to get dumped, one way or the other, from Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Robert Byrd is stepping down as chair of the Appropriations Committee.

“To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven,” said Byrd, who had fended off earlier challenges this past spring and summer. “Those Biblical words from Ecclesiastes 3:1 express my feelings about this particular time in my life.

“I have been privileged to be a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee for 50 years and to have chaired the committee for ten years, during a time of enormous change in our great country, both culturally and politically,” Byrd continued in a statement released by his office. “I have learned that nothing is quite so permanent as change. It is simply a part of living and should not be feared.”

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who is 84, will take over for Byrd on the powerful panel, which oversees hundreds of billions of dollars annually in federal spending. Byrd will officially hand off the gavel on Jan. 6, 2009.

That probably means Hawaii becomes the new Alaska in terms of porkbarrel spending.

What I'm looking for is to get a fighting, reform Democrat on one of the high-profile committees. That could happen with Russ Feingold at Foreign Relations.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden leaves an open chairmanship on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that could end up being filled by one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), among the chamber's most liberal members, is the fourth Democrat in line on the committee, behind Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).

Dodd said Thursday he plans to stay on as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Kerry is reportedly lobbying to be President-elect Barack Obama's Secretary of State.

That leaves Feingold, an unapologetic champion of civil liberties and a staunch opponent of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, next in line. Feingold opposed the war from the start and was the first senator to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal timetable.

For accountability and judgment, there could be no better captain at the helm of Foreign Relations than Feingold. One of the Iraq War's strongest opponents (and the sole dissenting voice on the PATRIOT Act), Russ would be the perfect prescription after eight years of Bush foreign policy. And he's not one to pull punches or bow to politics, even with members of his own party: just over a week ago (and right before a Presidential election), Feingold wrote an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor questioning the conventional wisdom of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

That was a superlative op-ed. I'd be very interested in having this happen. It'd be something to see anyone who got the Iraq war right succeed upwards, wouldn't it?

Maybe The Greatest Senate Floor Debate Of All Time

Robert Byrd gives Jim Bunning exactly the respect he deserves.

Oh, the full dialogue from the blogpost below according to WaPo's Paul Kane (and other reporters in the gallery) who heard the full shouting match between Sen. Robert C. Byrd and Sen. Jim Bunning, shouting from their seats across that aisle at each other:

Bunning: "Regular order!"

Byrd: "Who said that?"

Bunning: "I did."

Byrd: "Who are you?"

Bunning: "I'm a senator."

Byrd: "You're a great baseball man."

Bunning: "I'm a senator; I have the same rights as you."

Byrd: "Yeah, man, you're a senator." [Ends by laughing hysterically at Bunning.]

I'm guessing this is about the pro forma sessions that Harry Reid has been insisting upon to block the President from any recess appointments. Which are fully legal, by the way. But that's besides the point. Jim Bunning isn't fit to shine Robert Byrd's shoes, and Republicans in general have pretty much no credibility to discuss the "rules" after what they've done the past 7 1/2 years.

De-Authorization

Hillary Clinton just added a new wrinkle to the Iraq debate.

SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

This is the same legislation that Bill Richardson called for in San Diego. And it's very powerful. The situation in Iraq today bears no resemblance to the situation in October 2002. The 2002 authorization is outdated. It says nothing about a civil war. It says nothing about sectarian violence. It says everything about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein. This is a no-brainer.

There is a problem with the alphabet soup legislation from all of these different candidates that kind of negates consensus. That's also good in a way, because the attacks on the status quo come from a variety of different angles. I would support this legislation.