A Look at Where Feingold, Franken, Casey, and Johnson Stand

The tenth and final in a series on what senators on the fence are thinking.

This post has been updated.

As the health care debate rages on, senators are quietly moving downstream and upstream on climate.

So far, our series has homed in on senators undecided about a cap-and-trade bill. Today’s post, which will wrap up our series, looks at a different group — former “yes” votes who have jumped ship to “probably yes” — as well as one former fence-sitter who has reportedly moved in the opposite direction.

TheGreenGrok began our series in July to track those U.S. senators on the climate-bill fence and then analyze which way they might swing and why. We’ve based our list on analyses by E&E Daily, which has updated its tallies of likely votes on the Senate climate bill as news, views, and interviews have called for. And we've dug around online to find public statements on climate and climate legislation to see what hints the senators might have spilled on the topics.

Today we take a slightly different view, tracking some movement on the "yes" side of the fence.

We’ll start with Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Al Franken (D-MN), and Robert Casey (D-PA), who have been downgraded from “yes” to “probably yes” votes. 

Sen. Feingold: Worried About Coal

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)

We actually know more about how Russ Feingold feels about the alt rock band Wilco (he likes them — see video) than about cap and trade. But that’s modern times for you.

Feingold signaled hesitation with the climate bill following the Congressional recess in August. For example, he was quoted on WisBusiness.com as saying, “I’m not signing onto any bill that rips off Wisconsin.”

He was referring to the contention that mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions could be economically risky for a state like Wisconsin that is heavily reliant (to the tune of 65 percent) on coal. Is it possible that he got an earful from some of his anti-climate bill constituency back home during the recess?

Feingold, like a number of fence-sitting senators, is also in favor of border or carbon tariffs designed to protect American industries from competition in countries without limits on carbon emissions.

”Why should we leave ourselves completely exposed while they just get to go forward?” said Feingold.

Sen. Franken: What About ‘Clean’ Air America?

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) also cares about his constituents. Maybe you’ve seen him draw a map of the United States? It’s pretty impressive — he starts by outlining the state of Minnesota and sketches the rest from there. (TheGreenGrok’s editor, who has seen it in person, can vouch for its imposing coolness.)

Well, Franken seems to be focusing on Minnesota as he looks at the climate bill and going from there.

Sure, Franken favors the “the creation of a green economy that creates jobs and improves our environment,” as his Senate web site (which is under construction) sums up. And last year on the campaign trail Franken spoke to Grist.org about the need

“to accelerate the progress on clean energy policies, by adopting legislation to cap and mandate reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. An average reduction of 2 percent each year would achieve the goal of an 80 percent total reduction by 2050. To reach an 80 percent reduction by 2050, permits to emit carbon should be auctioned — not given away."

Then there's this bit from his former campaign site on his call for an "Apollo project" for renewable energy.

“This 'Apollo project' should provide financial support for research into new forms of renewable energy and development of currently-identified sources to make them more efficient. Of course I’m talking about corn ethanol. But I’m also talking about cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. I’m talking about solar power. And, especially here in Minnesota, I’m talking about wind power. We live in a windy state!"

But right now Minnesota, like Wisconsin, gets a lot of its electricity from coal (60 percent), and so despite all the great words about needing to address climate change and the advantages of the green economy, Franken, like many of his Midwestern colleagues, is beginning to hedge his bets on the climate bill. And like Feingold, Franken wants some economic protection, through tariffs.

Sen. Casey: Calls for a Level Playing Field

Indeed, competition is at the heart of some fence-sitters’ and some "probable yes" voters' ditherings. A letter signed by 10 U.S. senators, including Feingold, Franken, and Casey, to President Barack Obama lays it out like this:

Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA)

"As Congress considers energy and climate legislation, it is important that such a bill include provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing. … It is essential that any clean energy legislation not only address the crisis of climate change, but include strong provisions to ensure the strength and viability of domestic manufacturing."

In addition to those mentioned above, the letter was signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Carl Levin (D-MI),  Evan Bayh (D-IN), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Arlen Specter (D-PA), and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV).

It’s looking like the Senate has its work cut out to craft a bill that is palatable to senators of coal-reliant, coal-producing, and manufacturing states.

Sen. Johnson: Off the Fence and Into the ‘Yes’ Column

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-ND)

Lest we get criticized for "one-sided" coverage, here’s some movement in the other direction: Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) has been taken out of the “probably yes” and put in the “yes” column.

Sen. Johnson appeared to signal his support for climate legislation in an opinion piece published in late August. Among the notable quotes was this:

“Soon the Senate will consider climate change legislation that could finally help South Dakota to live up to its wind generating potential and capture the benefits of a cash crop that is just blowing across our landscape.”

It’s statements like this that probably helped prognosticators move Johnson from a “probably” to a “yes.” But is he really a “yes?” Check out this clarification reportedly from his office:

"The senator supports efforts for a clean energy incentives bill. The House bill (H.R. 2454) will procedurally come to the Senate, but will get a completely fresh start and will likely look very different from the bill that passed the House. ...

The Senate Energy Committee has already begun its work, including a measure to increase renewable energy production and update the electric transmission grid. This would help stimulate wind energy development in places like the Dakotas and get the energy to where it’s needed around the country.

Again, Tim believes that this effort can bring jobs, prosperity and clean air to our state while moving us away from a dependence on foreign sources of energy."

Tallying the Votes

According to E&E Daily [pdf] there are currently 31 firm “yes,” 13 “probably yes,” and 21 “on the fence” votes in the Senate. Getting to the magical 60-vote threshold will require not only all the “yes” and “probably yes” votes, but a healthy fraction of the fence-sitters as well. That seems to be a pretty heavy lift. Especially heavy if the Senate is to pass a bill in time for the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. And then of course there is the little problem of Congress getting past health care.

But maybe it won’t be such a heavy lift after all. Are all those senators who claim to be dithering and prevaricating about their support for climate legislation really considering voting “no” on climate legislation? Or are they simply staking out a bargaining position to get their own little amendment to protect their constituency and/or special interest into the bill, and when push comes to shove they will vote “yes.” Something to ponder as we hurry up and wait on the Senate to get their act together and vote.

Update 10/14/2009.

On Oct. 7, Sen. Franken (or his office) replied to our inquiry about where he stands on climate legislation. Though he didn't respond directly to our question about what he thought of the Waxman-Markey bill, the email reply did seem to indicate a fence-sitting position. Here is the message, edited for length, that we received from him:

"One of the reasons I support comprehensive energy legislation is that Minnesota is uniquely positioned to become a global leader in clean energy production.
... Right now, China and Germany are winning the race to develop solar and wind power ...
Minnesota is in a position to benefit from the national energy legislation that Congress is now considering. But it's critical that we get the details right. On August 6, 2009, I sent a letter to President Obama urging that any national climate change program include incentives to force China and India to reduce their emissions. These incentives will ensure environmental integrity and economic security here at home. Additionally, I am working to secure new economic opportunities for Minnesota farmers in the emerging market for carbon offsets.
Over the next few months, as the Senate completes work on its energy plan, I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that Minnesota is best positioned to reap the benefits of the new energy economy."