Sen. Robert Casey Joins Filibuster Threat Against Obama’s Cap And Trade Plan
Sen. Robert Casey Joins Filibuster Threat Against Obama’s Cap And Trade Plan
Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) has joined conservative senators who want to preserve the threat of a filibuster against President Obama’s legislation to fight global warming pollution. President Obama’s climate adviser Carol Browner has been testing the waters of using the budget reconciliation process to pass his cap-and-trade plan, preventing a floor filibuster and allow passage with the support of 50 senators. However, this effort has “drawn opposition from 28 senators,” in a letter sent Thursday to the Senate Budget Committee:
We oppose using the budget reconciliation process to expedite passage of climate legislation.
The signatories, organized by Mike Johanns (R-NE) and Robert Byrd (D-WV), include 22 Republicans and six Democrats. Every Democrat except for Sen. Casey had indicated their opposition to progressive climate legislation last year, by stating they would have blocked the industry-friendly Lieberman-Warner bill because it did not do enough to protect polluters. On January 28, 2009, Sen. Casey argued convincingly that the Senate needed to address “catastrophic global warming” immediately:
The threat of catastrophic global warming may seem to be a second priority after fixing our current economic crisis, but I believe that we if we do not address both simultaneously we are setting ourselves up for another crisis in the future that will have untold consequences on the world’s economy and population. We must work aggressively to fix our immediate problems while ensuring our long-term security and prosperity.
The full text of the letter:
March 12, 2009
Dear Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member Gregg:
We oppose using the budget reconciliation process to expedite passage of climate legislation.
Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy. Legislation so far‐reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow. Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.
We commend you for holding the recent hearing, entitled “Procedures for Consideration of the Budget Resolution/Reconciliation,” which discussed important recommendations for the upcoming budget debate. Maintaining integrity in the budget process is critical to safeguarding the fiscal health of the United States in these challenging times.
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Robert Casey (D-PA)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
Michael Enzi (R-WY.)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
David Vitter (R-LA)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
11 Responses to “Sen. Robert Casey Joins Filibuster Threat Against Obama’s Cap And Trade Plan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
See what happens when a few Corpora-Crats split off. The race to the lowest global common denominator continues on taxes, worker pay/benefits, and pollution. Amazing! Corporafornication lives…
March 13th, 2009 at 6:29 pmEvan Bayh, hand maiden of the Carlyle Group and Sovereign Wealth Funds. He’s in the corner of for-profit healthcare. Wife Susan sits on numerous boards and brings home mucho bacon.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/03/bayh-household-finance-update.html
March 13th, 2009 at 6:30 pmUnfortunately former Ag Sec’y Mike Johanns belongs to Nebraska, not Nevada.
Ed. — Thanks, fixed.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:38 pmObama et al wants to spend mega billions on infrastructure repair and improvements and on lots of new construction. This will require mega gobs of concrete, steel and Diesel fuel which cannot be made with expending mega gobs of high heat.
Yet he and his crowd wants to slap carbon cap and trade schemes on heavy industrties.
These guys are technologically illiterate morons!
March 14th, 2009 at 6:17 pmYikes! “…with…” should be “…without…”
I think I’d better get another cup of coffee and smoke another
March 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pmCanadian Classic!
Harold, you had it right the first time, except for the diesel fuel. If we convert to wind power, we start directly mitigating global warming by extracting energy directly from the atmosphere. As soon as we convert to plug-in hybrid mining equipment, then it will all be smooth sailing back to 350 p.p.m. CO2.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:32 amThere has to be something more to that.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:16 amIf you want everyone to pay more for electricity and heat , you are an idiot.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pmWho said paying more? I think renewables should be subsidized to 80% of the least of coal and gas. Why should we impose more regressive fuel taxes in an era when we are trying to make the tax structure more progressive, to grow the middle class?
March 17th, 2009 at 1:34 amOMG – we need to “protect the polluters”. Well, if that is what you really want…I am old and won’t leave anyone who has to live and breathe contaminated air as we stay with coal, contaminate water with unproven natural gas retrieval and are owned by whoever owns the oil that supplies automobiles with gasoline.
I am old, so I don’t have to care…but really, where are do you keep your brains… in your wallet?
Does the statement: “there is no such thing as a free lunch” or “pay now or pay later”, if your gene pool is going to continue you would be wise to pay now, it will be a whole lot cheaper than in the future!
The current GOP argument is the same one used as Bush – gas is cheap…please remember not to complain when the price skyrockets again and there is no substitute, because you wanted to “protect the polluters” and not fund research – IDIOTIC!
March 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pmJust one more thing: How many of these DEM Senators are from states that benefit from “pollution generators” like coal or believe that ethanol is the answer. They really know who pay for their election campaign…shameful self protection.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:48 pm