An old image of the Senate is that of an institution designed to dilute the passions of the House of Representatives by moderating bills before passing them on to the President’s desk:
An oft-quoted story about the “coolness” of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” asked Washington. “To cool it,” said Jefferson. “Even so,” responded Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
With respect to the ACES climate bill, however, the irony is actions the Senate takes to moderate the bill will more likely have a “warming” than a “cooling” effect on the climate. Thus, now that ACES has passed the House, environmental advocates have focused their attention on the Senate, to attempt to strengthen the bill if possible, or at least ward off its weakening.
Two key factors make the Senate a more challenging venue. First, the Senate gives each state equal power, regardless of population, which as Yale political science professor Robert Dahl has argued, is profoundly undemocratic. It means that a smaller state, like West Virginia (population 1.8 million) has the same representation as a larger state, such as California (population 36.7 million).
Second, as Reuters emphasized in a recent analysis, unlike the House, the Senate has the filibuster, which means that a majority of votes is not enough – 60 votes must be garnered before debate can be ended and a final decision made:
There is a chance the Senate legislation could be weaker than the House version in order to avoid a filibuster. “That means a Senate-passed bill will only be as good as the views of the 60th senator. So the deal-making in the House may be only a preview of things to come in the Senate,” said Frank O’Donnell, head of Clean Air Watch.
That being said, there are still some prospects for strengthening the bill. For one, as Joseph Romm has observed, although President Obama actively supported the House bill, he has conserved his political capital on the issue for the upcoming Senate fight.
For another, Romm writes, proper framing of the issue in historical terms can appeal to legacy-minded Senators:
Senators do, however, tend to see themselves as historical figures more than House members. The key to framing a win on this bill is to portray it — accurately — as the single most important vote a member will ever cast. If we fail to stop catastrophic global warming, future generations will not care what we have done on issues like health care, the deficit and Iraq. If we fail to stop massive sea level rise, widespread desertification, and 10-degrees-Fahrenheit warming over much of the inland U.S. — all of which we face on our current emissions path — then every person who voted against this bill will be vilified by history.
Finally, Senators may feel they have more political space to be able take a stand on this issue, since they are up for election every 6 years, rather than every 2 years like their colleagues in the House.
With respect to the timeline, indications are that the process of shepherding the bill through the Senate will begin in the coming weeks, according to the New York Times:
In an interview Saturday, Boxer said she would introduce a climate bill “very soon” in July, with “enough time so we can have a couple of legislative hearings and a couple of briefings.”
The three-term senator said she would build from the House bill, with plans for a markup before the end of July. Beyond Boxer’s Environment panel, five other Senate committees are also expected to weigh in: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance and Foreign Relations.
Reid has set a Sept. 18 deadline for the six committees to produce their pieces of the bill for consideration on the Senate floor this fall.