Shabby Dem Tactics Yield Bad Enviro Results

For the party in power, it is always tempting to believe that the end justifies the means. So it is not surprising that the Democrats have quickly forgotten good government arguments that they made when they were in the minority.

Four years ago, congressional Republicans tried to pry open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling by attaching authorization language to budget “reconciliation” legislation, which under Senate rules is not subject to filibuster.

No filibuster, no need for 60 votes to overcome objections from Democrats and contrarian Republicans like Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and John McCain who opposed drilling in the Refuge.

At the time, Democrats and environmental groups argued correctly that the maneuver was an abuse of the budget process designed to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role as a check on hastily considered legislation.

Now they are proposing the same parliamentary trickery to jam through legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

No filibuster, no need for 60 votes, and no need to reach a climate compromise with swing Republicans and enact a truly bipartisan bill.

It was wrong when the Republicans did it and it is wrong now. The congressional budget process was set up to prevent stalemates on passing the annual federal budget, not to give too-clever members of Congress a slippery way to rush their agendas into law without proper deliberation, hearings, and debate.

The issue is much more than a pedantic concern about parliamentary niceties. History shows convincingly that complex environmental legislation works most effectively and enjoys the most public support when it passes with solid, bipartisan backing.

Our nation’s landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Wilderness Act, have stood the test of time in large part because they were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. 

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by recommended amounts will take decades of sustained progress. Advocates should strive to pass legislation that can endure, not just be enacted.

Broad, bipartisan support will be essential for shaping a bill with a reasonable chance of succeeding. By jamming through poorly vetted climate legislation on a party-line vote in an atmosphere of partisan rancor, DemocratsÑand their partners in the environmental communityÑwould further polarize the issue and reduce the legislation’s ability to weather ever-shifting political winds.

As much as it may pain Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to admit it, their party has not cornered the market on sound ideas for stewardship. To effectively tackle climate change, we need all the bright ideas that we can muster from both sides of the aisle.

Republican leaders, for their part, must be willing to play a constructive role in crafting climate legislation. Instead of kowtowing to those who want to ignore the problemÑbe they on talk radio or in the halls of CongressÑthey should work to empower those Republicans who want to be part of the solution.

There are at least a dozen Republican Senators and 30 GOP House members who would currently support a well-reasoned climate bill that takes into account their legitimate concerns regarding revenue distribution and the role of nuclear energy.

Passing legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions will likely be the heaviest environmental policy lift that Congress has ever attempted. Rewiring the U.S. energy economy to shrink its carbon footprint will take a carefully vetted, prudent package of standards, incentives, technology research, and follow-up oversight.

Four years ago, Democrats rightfully opposed a Republican majority that trampled proper procedure to rush through their Arctic refuge drilling agenda. Now that the majority shoe is on the other foot, Democrats must avoid the temptation to try an identical dodge to get their way on climate.