Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Panel shall develop a strategy to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources so that natural resources become more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the ongoing and expected impacts of climate variability and change.

It would also encourage, but not require, state-specific adaptation plans.

Effects of climate change mentioned as examples in the legislation are droughts and heatwaves, storms and floods; wildfires; outbreaks of forest pests and invasive species; flooding and erosion of coastal areas due to rising sea levels; melting glaciers and sea ice; thawing permafrost; shifting fish, wildlife, and plant population ranges; disruptive shifts in the timing of fish, wildlife, and plant natural history cycles, such as blooming, breeding, and seasonal migrations; and ocean acidification.

The legislation is cosponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), also a member of EPW. Baucus has repeatedly opposed action to limit climate change pollution.

Download the SAFE Act (as prepared for introduction).

And here’s Sarah Binder using DW-NOMINATE instead:

These accounts differ in detail, but not in the overall picture they paint. In both cases, Max Baucus and Fred Upton are the most moderate members of the committee and the Baucus/Upton gap is quite large compared to what they have in common with their co-partisans.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at the Copenhagen climate conference.

However low the likelihood, the committee does have the opportunity to put together a package that actually addresses the real long-term threats the nation faces, with desperately needed clean-energy and climate-resilience infrastructure spending funded by strict taxes or a cap on carbon pollution.

Kerry has said he believes that climate change “biggest long term threat” to national security. His 2010 climate bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce the deficit by $19 billion, even using its extremely conservative assumptions that a massive investment in clean energy and infrastructure would somehow slow economic growth. A more aggressive climate plan that reflects the true urgency of the climate crisis would do even more to restore jobs and cut the deficit.

“We owe it to our children and future generations to get this issue under control and soon,” Murray argues about climate change.

Unfortunately, Kerry and Murray have not yet spread their climate-hawk wings and pointed out that the only solution to the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook involves solving the climate crisis. On Meet the Press, Kerry described his view thusly:

And the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It’s the long-term debt. It’s the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation. That, then juxtaposed to the lack of jobs and job creation and growth. That’s our problem, structural.

In a joint statement with Baucus, Kerry and Murray said:

Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone’s principles. We believe we can get there.

Their challenges is to save this nation’s long-term economic future. One can only hope they choose reality over compromise, even if Republican Party principles like denying science are damaged.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI): “I do not say that it is man-made.”

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI): “From what I have read, there remains a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about climate change.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): “There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): “When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) — whose top contributors include Koch Industries — has joined Camp and Upton in numerous votes this year to deny the threat of climate pollution, including H.R. 910, the House bill introduced by Upton to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse pollution endangers public health and welfare.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) also voted in April in a failed attempt to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding. Toomey and Portman were co-sponsors of that legislation.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) also tried in April to prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from a wide range of polluters.

However, Baucus has claimed that he has wanted Congress to lead on fighting climate pollution while opposing the EPA. He has the opportunity to become a climate hawk and insist that the fiscal package his committee devises include a civilization-saving, economy-spurring, and deficit-reducing carbon tax or cap and trade program.

Of the nine members already named to the committee, only Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) have been unequivocal about their efforts to fight greenhouse pollution.

A lot of liberals don’t love Max Baucus. And, in fact, I don’t love Max Baucus. But I think liberals who are concerned about Baucus’ appointment to the “super committee” are barking up the wrong tree. After all, as Brian Beutler notes, Baucus served on the Simpson-Bowles Committee and ultimately voted against its recommendations on the grounds that they weren’t left-wing enough. Super committee Republicans, meanwhile, would regard Simpson-Bowles as outrageously socialistic. That means Baucus should be a reliable progressive vote for deadlock, as should Patty Murray (who’s chairing the DSCC) and John Kerry.

In general, people should remember that while an important cleavage exists between moderate and liberal Democrats about the desirability of cutting Social Security spending, there’s really very little disagreement about the core issue facing the super committee, which is whether Democrats should agree to far-reaching domestic cuts without any offsetting tax hikes. Baucus is firmly within the party mainstream in demanding balance.

It’s a sad state of affairs when members on both sides of the aisle in Congress seem to think it is a good idea to attack the Clean Air Act – the landmark law that Richard Nixon signed and George H. W. Bush strengthened. Yet the hits on the Clean Air Act just keep on coming in this Congress in spite of the Act’s incredible record of cutting deaths and illness caused by air pollution – a record that has earned the strong support of the American people and the admiration of others around the world.

No amendments to force the EPA to take stronger action have been submitted. Rockefeller’s toxic amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Kent Conrad (D-ND). McConnell’s climate denial amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA).

The usual suspects are out en masse pounding the drums to demonize the EPA and at least implicitly deny the existence of global warming:

– The Koch brothers’ Americans For Prosperity attacks “higher energy costs and lost jobs that would result from the EPA distorting the Clean Air Act.”

– Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal: “the EPA plan will appreciably lower the U.S. standard of living.”

– The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is running radio ads in Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and other states that dis the Clean Air Act as a “40-year-old law.”

– the Competitive Enterprise Institute: “EPA regulations actually impose costs far in excess of benefits.”

– the National Association of Manufacturers is running radio and television ads in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania that attack “costly new regulations.”

The target senators are McCaskill, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Carl Levin (D-MI), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA).

Call your Senators and ask them to vote against any legislation that would block the EPA from limiting greenhouse pollution: 202-224-3121

“The proposal was originally written to keep taxes low by giving the IRS more tools to ensure all owed taxes were paid,” Baucus’ press release reads. “However, following passage of the law, some business owners expressed concern that when the provision does go into effect, the forms would place too large of a paperwork burden on businesses struggling in a still-recovering economy.” In response to those concerns, Baucus said he would “repeal the new reporting requirements and look for other ways to improve tax compliance and keep taxes low.”

Two previous efforts to repeal the measure failed in the Senate. Sen. Mike Johanns’ (R-NE) proposal would have repealed the tax reporting requirement for small businesses, but made up for the $17 billion revenue shortfall by eliminating $11 million from the Preventive Health Task Force and weakening the individual health insurance mandate. Sen. Bill Nelson’s (D-FL) alternative proposal would have required only larger businesses to report their transactions with vendors. Baucus’ office did not specify how the Senator would pay for the repeal or return requests for comment.

NFIB President Dan Danner praised Baucus’ announcement just minutes after it became public. “We are pleased Senator Baucus has announced his support for full repeal of the 1099 provision and are eager for him to formally introduce his bill when Congress returns,” Danner said in a statement. “The sooner Congress repeals this burdensome provision, the better.” Asked about the organization’s quick response, NFIB spokesperson Stephanie Cathcart told me the group has worked closely lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to build momentum to repeal the provision. She said NFIB did not help craft the Baucus’ particular repeal provision.

For repeal to succeed, Senators would have to waive the pay-go rules or find $17 billion in savings — a tall order given today’s partisan environment. Democratic have previously proposed paying for repeal with unspent stimulus funds (a bad idea), changing the inheritance tax (which is likely to get some GOP support) or levying a tax on carried interest.

And if an insurer thinks it can continue to impose double-digit premium increases, while providing fewer health benefits and enjoying record surpluses, it is again mistaken. There have been too many reports of insurance companies imposing insurance premiums increases at will with little oversight or public accountability. We are committed to ensuring that premium increases are fair and justified. [...]

We have and will continue to strongly encourage states and HHS to use their existing authority as well as the authority created under the Affordable Care Act to its fullest to ensure that premium increases across the country are justified and communications are honest. We will continue to work toward ensuring that the federal and state governments have the necessary resources and authority to review potentially unjustified premium increases and to hold insurance companies accountable.

Baucus and Rockefeller pledge that they “are committed to ensuring that consumers are treated fairly and will closely examine any potentially misleading communications to consumers,” but there is actually little the federal government can do — outside of publicly shaming insurers or passing a federal rate review law — to hold insurers accountable.

As Sebelius explained today, “it’s a real catch-22. The law assumes that states will regulate rates, that that’s the best marketplace. This is really a state-based bill…only if they abdicate that responsibility or say that they don’t want to participate do we have kind of the back-up responsibility.”

For ways the federal government can pressure states to hold down unreasonable rates, click here.

By Ryan McNeely

Glenn Greenwald notes the seediness of Liz Fowler going to the White House to help implement health care policy given that she used to be VP of WellPoint, and correctly points out that this hire is at odds with the administration’s promise to “close the revolving door.” But I wanted to pick up on another troubling aspect of this decision Greenwald mentions: the retroactive seal of approval this seems to grant to the approach taken by Fowler’s boss, Senator Max Baucus.

This is the same Max Baucus that openly admits he royally screwed up by dismissing the opinions of everyone to his left. The same Max Baucus that Rahm Emanuel had to supposedly secretly plot to undermine in order to keep the White House’s options open. It’s no surprise that when Dana Goldstein outlines the “10 Biggest Health-Care Mistakes,” fully half of them are directly or indirectly related to Baucus’ “Gang of Six” thumb-twiddling. Of course, for all the wasted time he got nothing.

The kicker, though, is that when Speaker Pelosi announced that she would include reconciliation instructions as part of the House health care effort, Baucus was condescendingly dismissive:

“The fact of the matter is that I don’t think the House is really thinking through the affect that reconciliation is going to have on the end game,” Baucus said. “And the end game is much more in jeopardy under reconciliation.”

Whoops. It turns out that because of Baucus’ inexplicable something-for-nothing delays which led to the loss of the filibuster-proof majority before the Senate could act, health care reform would not have passed without reconciliation. There aren’t a shortage of people who would like to work for Barack Obama, so when someone is offered a job to implement White House policy, one can assume that the White House thinks that he or she is the best person for the job. Ironically, Fowler is getting a job that wouldn’t exist at all had Baucus’ view of the matter won the day.

After it became clear that Baucus’ strategy was a failure, Ezra Klein wrote, “Conceding so much in return for so little isn’t just bad politics — it’s bad precedent. Why should Republicans sign onto Baucus’s proposals in the future if they can simply adjust the bill to their liking and then withhold their support at the end?” Indeed. And why should Democrats in Congress continue to fight hard for White House priorities in the future if the White House signals that the model for good health care legislating is best represented by Max Baucus and his staff?

Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and OMB Director Peter Orszag

This long overdue change has yet to be taken up by the Senate, as Senate Republicans have been adamantly opposed to it. “I think it will be difficult [to find 60 votes for the change],” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). “A lot of hedge funds have gone belly up,” claimed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). “Frankly, this administration will raise any tax it can.”

However, Congress has a bunch of very popular business tax credits that it would like to extend, but the extensions need to be paid for, so the carried interest break is looking more likely to disappear. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said this week that there’s “a growing sense of inevitability” about the tax hike occurring, despite heavy lobbying from the financial services industry.

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag agreed yesterday, predicting that “you’re going to see a change in the taxation of carried interest pass the Senate within the next few weeks.” Orszag then took on the common conservative canard that the tax increase would stifle investment:

Mr. Orszag argued that Wall Street would adjust to a higher tax rate on carried interest, saying he was “unaware of any credible evidence that there would be any significant adverse effect from the increase in taxes”…Mr. Orszag asserted that past tax increases — from those on dividends, capital gains and the marginal income tax rates — did not lead to a big dip in investment and that changes in the tax treatment of carried interest would most likely have a negligible impact on investing.

Hedge fund managers make hundreds of millions of dollars (and often billions) annually. Does anyone really think they will suddenly slam on the brakes if they have to pay the same tax rate as the janitors who clean their offices?

The preferential treatment of carried interest is a bizarre fault in the tax code that only persists because of the power of the financial services industry and Republican resistance to any tax hike at any time. But sooner or later, Congress is going to have to start raising money somewhere, and treating carried interest for what it is — normal income — is a good place to start.

Today, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the bank tax, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) — who has said there’s not much doubt that a bank tax will happen — said that the U.S. should “step up and lead” on this issue, and set an example for the rest of the world:

The U.S. could show more leadership by leading, by acting. You know, if we sit around waiting for all these other countries to agree my guess is not much is going to happen. A lot of countries look to the United States for leadership. If the United States does something that’s reasonable, that leads, I think there’s a good chance other countries will take note of that and try to figure out a way to do something similar, if not exactly the same. Sometimes you’ve got to step up and lead. But you’ve got to talk while you’re leading and listen while you’re leading, but you’ve got to take some action too.

Watch it:

Baucus is correct here. For one thing, the law that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008 stipulates that any money lost through the program must be recouped by a fee on the financial system, so it’s really not a question of whether such a tax will come into being, but when and how. But in addition to the statutory requirement, there are good economic reasons for levying a fee on the biggest financial institutions. It would make the cost of being a large financial institution marginally higher, and would help address the funding advantage that large banks enjoy over their smaller counterparts.

Plus, the tax as currently envisioned by the Obama administration is incredibly small when compared to the vast amount of assets in the banking system. That’s why the Brookings Institution’s Douglas Elliot told the committee that he believes the concern about banks moving their operations offshore in reaction to the tax is overblown:

Banks and thrifts reported $13 trillion of assets to the FDIC, which does not count considerable investment banking and other non‐bank assets. Thus, the industry could cover the $9 billion fee by charging less than an additional 0.1% on each dollar of assets, on a pre‐tax basis, assuming the fee is not tax‐deductible. In practice, the industry might pass along half of this to customers, or approximately 0.05% per dollar of assets, and absorb the other half by taking a 1% hit to income plus non‐interest expense. For comparison, the Fed would never bother with an interest rate move this small, because the effect on the overall economy would be minor.

Republicans have been adamantly opposed to creating a bank tax, while some Democrats are correctly pushing for a permanent levy. The bank tax issue is scheduled to be discussed at the next meeting of the G-20, which is slated for June.

When Congress passed TARP back in the fall of 2008, they included a provision requiring the executive branch to devise a proposal for recovering the funds. The Obama administration delivered in January, with an idea for a temporary “bank tax” that would be paid by the largest financial services firms in the country and semi-offset the implicit subsidy that they get from implicit government guarantees. It was a good idea that congress ought to push further—make the tax permanent, for example. Max Baucus says no:

The Senate Finance Committee chairman tells The Hill he doesn’t think there are 60 votes for a bank tax.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on Tuesday told The Hill that he did not believe his chamber had the 60 votes needed to include a bank tax in the financial reform bill currently being debated on the floor.

“I don’t think it has 60 votes on this bill,” he said.

I find this kind of “meta” stuff very annoying and I wish reporters wouldn’t let the Baucuses of the world get away with it so easily. 60 votes aside, does Baucus think the bank tax idea is a good one? If not, what’s his critique of it? If so, does he think it would be good to try to bring it up as a separate reconciliation bill at some point? Is there some different form of tax increase that he likes better? Or will the budget deficit vanish like magic without tax increases?

First, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) appeared on MSNBC to decry the effect of derivatives regulation on community banks. Then, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, went to the Senate floor to claim that resolution authority — the proposed mechanism for unwinding large, failed financial firms — would give large banks an advantage over their smaller counterparts. Watch a compilation:

Neither of these concerns has a basis in reality. Chambliss is worried about the effect of derivatives reform when 97 percent of the activity in the $300 trillion derivatives market is undertaken by just five mega-banks: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. I’m not sure what sort of derivatives trading Chambliss thinks is occurring at the community level, but reform should make it cheaper for businesses to use derivatives to legitimately hedge against risk.

As for Shelby’s concern, the fact that resolution authority will enable the very biggest banks to fail (instead of being propped up by the government) should benefit smaller banks — which already have a mechanism in place for when they fail — by removing the big firms’ implicit government guarantee.

But if the GOP is really concerned about the effect of regulatory reform on community banks, then it should be embracing the push to levy a bank tax on the biggest financial firms. This would help level the playing field by making it more expensive to be a large interconnected firm (offsetting some of the funding advantages that such size conveys). The Congressional Budget Office has said that a bank tax would “improve the competitive position of small- and medium-size banks, probably leading to some increase in their share of the loan market.”

Of course, the GOP has shown no inclination to support a bank tax. In fact, it has actively scoffed at the idea. But Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said earlier this week that “I don’t think there’s much doubt that there will be a bank tax.” So will Chambliss and Shelby jump on board?

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

The Baucus/Grassley bill was roundly panned by the rest of the Democratic caucus. “It looks more like a tax bill than a jobs bill to me,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). So Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) scrapped it in favor of a $15 billion bill with four pieces: a payroll tax break, and one-year extension of highway funding, an extension of the Build America bond program, and a business tax break for equipment expensing.

Republicans, who were keen on many of the tax provisions in the Baucus/Grassley bill, immediately cried foul, complaining that Reid was undermining economic recovery with his actions. Grassley spokeswoman Jill Kozeny said that Reid “pulled the rug out from work to build broad-based support for tax relief and other efforts to help the private sector recover from the economic crisis.”

But it’s funny that the GOP suddenly feels that the legislation is must-pass to boost an economic recovery considering that earlier in the week they said that it wouldn’t create a single job:

Kyl, a member of Finance, said he most definitely “would not call it a ‘jobs bill’,” though…“No, I dont call that a jobs bill,” Kyl said emphatically…”All of that has to be done, but it does not create one job.”

And even though they readily admitted that the bill was full of stuff “that has to be done,” Republicans were placing all sorts of conditions on their support, including unanimous consent to vote on a huge cut in the estate tax that would give billions in tax breaks to the heirs of wealthy families.

So Reid was wise to pitch the Baucus/Grassley bill overboard and to say that he’d revisit the tax extenders later. Even before it came out, economic analysts and members of the administration were saying that it would “only work on the margins” in terms of boosting employment. The New York Times’ editorial board noted that “it was not even in the same league as the modest House-passed $154 billion jobs bill.” There was no reason to allow the GOP to wring out concessions in order to pass a bill that wouldn’t have done anything.

Which isn’t to say that Reid’s $15 billion effort will do all that much either. With the administration’s Council of Economic Advisers estimating that unemployment is still going to be above eight percent in 2012, a much more concerted effort is necessary, including aid to states and some sort of direct job creation.

Cross-posted on the Wonk Room.

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “wanted to pass health care reform,” Baucus insisted. “They asked very good questions,” but “one by one by one they started to drift away. They wanted to pass health care reform, they wanted to act in a bipartisan basis but they were pressured, pressured from their political party not to do it.”

At one point, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) tried to argue that so-called “Gang of Six” members wanted to support a compromise, but “it dawned on them that my friends on the outer side of the aisle wanted to Europeanize the health care system of the United States of America.” Baucus responded angrily. “I want to tell this Senator that is not what happened,” he shouted, waiving his index finger at Wicker:

BAUCUS: I want to tell the Senator that that is not what happened. I was in the room constantly, constantly. I talked to those Senators many many times. That is not what happened. I”ll tell you what did happen. Your leadership pressured them, pressured them, pressured them not to work together. There is no European style effort in that room, that is a totally untruthful statement. Totally untruthful statement. None whatsoever….That assertion of working towards a European solution is entirely untrue. It’s entirely false.

Watch it:

“I just want the public to know that we worked very hard to get a bipartisan bill that side of the aisle started working with us but gradually they began to bleed politically,” Baucus said. They realized “that they would do a better chance in the 2010 elections by just not working with us, but just attack attack attack attack attack and try to score political points to defeat any honest effort to get health care reform.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Tomorrow, Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) Finance Committee will look at the effect of clean energy legislation on the “future of jobs.” Appearing before the committee are four industry or conservative lobbyists and one coal-industry union lobbyist, Abraham Breehey. The only economist to testify will be Margo Thorning, a lobbyist for the anti-tax American Council on Capital Formation. Also testifying is Carol Berrigan, a nuclear industry representative, Van Ton-Quinlivan of Pacific Gas & Electric, and American Enterprise Institute fellow Kenneth Green.

One could point out that Breehey’s union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, supports the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act in large part because it provides so much support for the coal industry.

One could point out that Berrigan’s organization, the Nuclear Energy Institute, is not satisfied that clean energy legislation will spur nuclear energy through free-market competition, but is demanding massive subsidies and tax breaks as well.

One could point out that ACCF and AEI have received millions of dollars in funding from Exxon Mobil alone, or that Thorning refuses to reveal her methodology and Green has tried to buy climate scientists for $10,000 a pop.

Instead, let’s just note that tomorrow’s testimony will likely rehash the talking points that these witnesses have delivered time and again for the past ten years. Other than Ton-Quinlivan, who is appearing for the first time before Congress, the witnesses are regulars on the Hill, testifying a combined 20 times on climate and energy policy since 2002. Thorning has been the most frequent guest over the years, and this will be Green’s fifth time testifying since June.

Margo Thorning:

• 3/26/09 House Ways & Means
• 3/18/09 House Energy and Commerce
• 9/18/08 House Global Warming
• 11/8/07 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 7/24/07 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 7/11/07 House Foreign Affairs
• 4/5/06 Senate Commerce & Senate Judiciary
• 4/3/06 Senate Energy and Natural Resources
• 10/5/05 Senate EPW
• 6/5/03 Senate Environment and Public Works

Kenneth P. Green

• 10/28/09 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 10/22/09 House Global Warming
• 10/15/09 Senate Foreign Relations
• 6/9/09 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 9/25/07 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 3/13/02 Senate Governmental Affairs

Carol Berrigan:

• 11/6/07 Senate Energy and Natural Resources
• 9/27/07 Senate Environment and Public Works

Abraham Breehey

• 2/14/08 Senate Finance
• 2/2/05 Senate Environment and Public Works

If the Finance Committee is really trying to learn something new about whether reforming our pollution-based energy infrastructure would create new jobs, one would think they could have put a little more effort in witness selection.

I don’t really think anyone quite knows what to make of this, but Max Baucus is seeming surprisingly bullish on the prospects of climate legislation: “There’s no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation. I don’t know if it’s going to be this year. Probably next year.” I would have thought that one major reason to be skeptical about a climate bill’s prospects is that it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that key senators like Max Baucus would be enthusiastic about. But there you have it.

Meanwhile, here’s Joe Lieberman making a lot of sense on climate. Environmental issues have long been the topic on which Lieberman is most progressive, but it had seemed to me that he’d drifted away from that commitment over the past couple of years.

Many conservative Democrats have questioned President Obama’s clean energy agenda. Now, a Republican is breaking with his party to talk sense. In a press conference yesterday with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Graham rebuked senators unwilling to address carbon pollution. Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Watch it:

Graham sounded more like Van Jones — the author of “The Green Collar Economy” who was branded by Glenn Beck as a “communist” — than many of his Democratic colleagues:

Max Baucus (D-MT): Montana, with our resource-based agriculture and tourism economies, cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation.

Evan Bayh (D-IN): Jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that.

Robert Byrd (D-WV): I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.

Byron Dorgan (D-ND): I just don’t think climate change is going to be on the floor this year. Trying to restart our economic engine and trying to get this country back to work — to me that is the most important issue.

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas.

Claire McCaskill (D-MO): I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.

Ben Nelson (D-NE): I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home are going to be disadvantaged.

Jim Webb (D-VA): We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.

Do these Democrats agree with Lindsey Graham that our planet “is in peril“? Do they agree with Graham that “limiting carbon pollution is good for business”? Will conservative Democrats follow Sen. Graham’s embrace of the “new green economy” — and shouldn’t they be asked if they will?