DEBATE OFFICIALLY SCHEDULED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION.  On May 22, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada) formally scheduled debate for S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, for June 2, the day Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess.  A cloture vote on a motion to proceed on the bill will follow one hour of debate for the revised legislation released on May 21 by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (California).  The bill, which was previously numbered S. 2191 and was introduced in the fall of 2007 by Senators Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) and John Warner (Virginia), has been revised to include cost-containment measures and various programs for states in order to raise energy efficiency and adapt to the consequences of climate change, as well as a reallocation of funding for coal states.  The bill still requires the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 70 percent by 2050, and creates an emissions trading system to achieve this goal.  To move forward on the bill, the cloture vote will require 60 votes.  Many amendments are expected during the discussion, including amendments on nuclear power, research and development of low-carbon technologies, and further reallocation of the $6.7 trillion of funding included in the legislation.  The current bill provides $92 billion for low-carbon energy technologies such as wind, solar, and other renewable sources through 2050, but there is nothing in the bill specifically for the nuclear industry.  Senators Lieberman and Warner will be offering an amendment in the form of a “sense of the Senate” to set aside a portion of the funding for the construction of new nuclear power plants.  Also, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Pete Domenici (New Mexico) will offer an amendment that would increase research, development and incentives for low-carbon technologies instead of instituting a cap-and-trade program, but would also put mandatory caps on emissions if the incentives are not effective in reducing emissions.  Senator Domenici’s amendment strongly resembles a proposal released several weeks ago by Ohio Senator George Voinovich.  Also in Senator Voinovich's proposal was language that would broadly preempt state and local authority on any policy associated with a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  While nothing definite has been announced, an amendment to preempt state and local government action is considered highly likely to come up during the floor debate.

THE NEVERENDING FARM BILL.  President Bush issued the 10^th veto of his administration on May 21, vetoing the reauthorization of the farm bill (H.R. 2419), reasoning that the bill is too expensive and does not do enough to reform farm subsidies.  The House successfully overrode the veto the same day by a vote of 316-108.  It was discovered after the vote, however, that the bill being discussed was not the full farm bill that was passed by the House on May 14 with a 318-106 vote and passed by the Senate on May 15 with a 81-15 vote.  The bill that was sent to the President did not contain Title III, the trade section which includes international food aid.  This error could cause a constitutional question with regards to the bill, as a bill that was not agreed to by both chambers of Congress cannot become law.  On May 22, the House passed, by a vote of 306-110, H.R. 6124, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act, which is identical to H.R. 2419 with all 15 titles.  Also on May 22, the Senate overrode the President’s veto of H.R. 2419 by a vote of 82-13, thus making 14 of the 15 titles in the original bill law.  This also marks just the second time that Congress has successfully overridden a Bush veto.

What does this all mean?  Congress will now have to figure out how to deal with Title III when they return from the Memorial Day recess on June 2.   It is believed that the Senate will take up the House-passed H.R. 6124, potentially setting up a deja vu experience of the President vetoing the bill and the override process beginning again.  Another option is that lawmakers will consider the trade title on its own.  Either way, another bill has to be sent to President Bush.  

Still strong support.  Although this continues the already long drawn out process of farm policy reauthorization, there remains strong bipartisan support for the bill.  The bill amounts to $286 billion over five years for crop subsidies, $1.7 billion in tax incentives for agriculture, conservation, and renewable energy projects, and over half of the total funding going towards food stamps and other nutrition programs.

Legal questions.  According to a 1892 court case, there is legal precedent for Congress to enact an abbreviated bill; therefore, Senate majority leaders decided to go ahead with the override vote of H.R. 2419.  Republicans, however, remain leery of the action, concerned about what kind of precedent this Congress is setting by approving a bill that is not the bill passed by both Chambers.  A similar situation occurred with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and in December 2007 the Supreme Court decided not to hear any of the cases, based on the before-mentioned 1892 Supreme Court decision, Marshall Field v. Clark, that concluded the courts were not to pry too closely into how a bill is passed once out of Congress.

SMART ELECTRIC GRID FORUM.  The presentations from the Smart Electric Grid Forum are available online.  Thank you to all those who participated in and contributed to the success of this meetings.  http://www.ncsl.org/programs/energy/smartgridpresent08.htm

COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL UPDATE FROM SPRING FORUM.  Available online at http://www.ncsl.org/print/statefed/humserv/FarmBilloverride_Senate.pdf