Johanns denounces use of budget reconciliation for climate change law
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sen. Mike Johanns office
WASHINGTON -- Senator Mike Johanns today spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the possibility of budget reconciliation being used to slip sweeping climate change legislation into law, which the Senate has twice rejected with a strong bipartisan majority vote. After stripping Senator Johanns' amendment from the final report, Senate Budget conferees produced a final budget resolution, to be voted on in the House and Senate today.
"I am disappointed by this blatant disregard of the clear will of the U.S. Senate, which has twice expressed its desire for full and robust debate on this complex legislation," Johanns said. "We made it clear that climate change legislation, which will have such significant economic impact on America, deserves thorough and thoughtful consideration. Congress is now one step closer to putting partisan strategizing above the will of the Senate and the interests of the American people."
Highlights as well as the full text of Senator Johanns' speech as prepared for delivery are below:
Fast Facts:
· On April 1, the Senate passed Senator Johanns' amendment with 67 votes, including 26 Democrats, which would have prevented cap-and-trade legislation from being slipped into law using budget reconciliation.
· On April 23, 66 Senators voted to instruct budget conferees to include the Johanns amendment in the final Senate Budget Conference Report.
o However, conferees stripped Senator Johanns' amendment, and it appears nowhere in the final budget.
o Instead, the following language was added in the report accompanying the Budget Resolution: 'It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related to global climate change.'
o This language appears only in the report and is not binding in any way.
· The House Energy and Commerce Committee has reconciliation instructions for the Senate in its final budget resolution.
o The House could use these instructions to enact cap-and-trade legislation.
· With these instructions, the House and Senate could go to conference and final legislation could emerge with cap-and-trade included--without any Senate amendments and only 10 hours of debate on the Senate floor.
· Budget reconciliation could also be used to push universal health care through to become law.
Senator Mike Johanns' Remarks As Prepared for Delivery:
"Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed in the outcome of the conference report -- specifically, the blatant disregard for the will of a bipartisan majority of the Senate.
"67 of us spoke with one voice in opposition to allowing cap-and-trade legislation to be slipped into law in a way that stifles amendments and debate. Almost 70 of us spoke again in a bipartisan voice to instruct budget conferees to include our amendment in their report to ensure the bright light of transparency shines on any cap-and-trade legislation. Yet, the amendment supported by 67 senators is nowhere to be found in this conference report. The door has been re-opened to pass sweeping cap-and-trade legislation with a simple majority.
"The Budget Committee leadership did include report language about climate change, but it has little or no meaning. The sentence in the conference report states, 'It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related to global climate change.' Unfortunately, this statement is not worth the paper it is written on. This assumption is made by people who don't even control the process.
"Frankly, the Budget Committee can assume whatever it wants, but the truth is the majority leadership can roll them at any time. And then what will be our recourse? There is none. This Budget Committee assumption has no teeth at all...It is simply a nice platitude to lull us to sleep. Surely you understand my skepticism.
"67 Senators supported an amendment that had real enforcement teeth to shield the American people from being railroaded in the dead of night. It would have ensured open debate and the opportunity to offer amendments. Yet, when the conference agreement returned, the amendment had been stripped from the budget resolution to ensure it appears nowhere in black and white.
"We must be on guard. Some might suggest we relax because there are no reconciliation instructions entitled 'cap and trade.' In fact, they will argue that because there are no instructions for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at all -- there is no need to worry -- case closed. Don't fall for it. Remember, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has reconciliation instructions in the final resolution.
"So, the House could easily use these instructions to enact cap and trade. They could generate over a trillion dollars for nationalized health care or for any other initiative. They go to conference and presto -- cap and trade emerges from the conference with not a single Senate amendment offered and only 10 hours of debate on the Senate floor.
"Consider this, a hard-working American on the night shift could literally go to bed after a long nights work and wake-up to find cap and trade is law. What a rude awakening -- his family facing a new $3,000 tax, and his job in jeopardy of moving overseas where no carbon cap exists.
"And let's not be fooled--there will be tremendous pressure on the Committee to follow this path. Many will want to avoid such inconveniences as consultation with the American people. After all, such discussions could be uncomfortable. Who wants the unpleasant job of explaining to the American people that they're going to be taxed every time they turn on a light or start the washing machine? I can see why some think it would be easier just to slip this legislation through with little transparency.
"And it's not just cap-and-trade that could become law without a robust debate -- budget reconciliation could also be used to push universal health care through. Budget reconciliation is ill-suited to pass complex, comprehensive legislation like health care reform. By mixing a complex policy with budget reconciliation instructions and the Byrd Rule, you get a witch's brew. The result would be a bizarre set of rules.
"You could literally have a situation where a high bar would have to be met -- a 60 vote requirement -- to pass non-controversial, budget-neutral health care provisions. And yet -- listen to this -- major overhaul provisions that cost hundreds of billions of dollars will only need a simple majority.
"And that is where we will be -- some simple sections of the health care bill will require 60-votes, while the tax increases and the extravagant spending provisions within the same bill will require only a simple majority. How unfortunate. It is certainly no way to legislate. This situation will make a mockery of the work we do in Congress.
"Mr. President, allowing only 20 hours of debate on this extremely complex issue will result in piecemeal policies with glaring weaknesses. I am not interested in finding a band-aid solution. I am not interested in playing politics with such an important issue. I am interested in being thoughtful about our approach to such important policy -- legislation that will affect the lives of virtually every American.
"The budget rules were never intended to expand government programs or be the catalyst for major policy implementation. The American people deserve better than the course this budget resolution charts. I urge all Americans to pay close attention because Congress is on a dangerous course.
"There is troubling potential for health care reform and climate legislation to constitute the largest government transfer of wealth ever witnessed in the history of our country. The American people must be vigilant. They must demand honesty... demand transparency... and demand that those in Washington remember the principles of democracy."
Story URL: mccookgazette.com |
