The budget rule that killed the minimum wage hike could save climate policies
In the 2021 and 2022 Congress, Democrats had a narrow Senate majority but nonetheless achieved major accomplishments through a combination of bipartisan legislation and the use of the budget reconciliation process. As chief counsel for the Senate Environment Committee, I was personally involved in some of these efforts and had a front row seat for others.
The approach brought major successes: the biggest investment in America's infrastructure ever, the most meaningful climate change bill ever passed by Congress and new policies that reinvigorated U.S. manufacturing. However, there were also some notable failures.
For example, Democrats sought to increase the federal minimum wage in the budget reconciliation process. The budget implications of raising the minimum wage were estimated to be $54 billion.
Despite that huge effect, whether the provision could be included in the budget package hinged on the application of the 'Byrd Rule,' which provides that budget bills cannot include provisions that have merely incidental budget effects compared to the provision's nonbudgetary effects.
Democrats were crestfallen when the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian ruled that including the wage provision would not comply with the Byrd rule. Simply put, indirect budgetary effects, even large ones, are considered incidental to the major and direct policy effects of raising the minimum wage.
The White House said at the time that President Biden 'respects the parliamentarian's decision and the Senate's process,' and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, 'reconciliation cannot be used as a vehicle to pass major legislative change — by either party — on a simple majority vote. This decision will, over time, reinforce the traditions of the Senate.'
The conservative Heritage Foundation was certainly relieved, as it had warned that including the wage provision would be the 'equivalent of detonating the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster.'
Democrats might have been disappointed then, but the rules of reconciliation should work in their favor this year, provided that the traditions of the Senate hold.
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has proposed budget reconciliation language that would defund, repeal and rewrite the nation's energy, environment and climate policies. Under a fair application of the Byrd rule, many of the provisions would have to be stripped out.
The budget director for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) recently observed that this effort to repeal Congress's policy language in a budget measure is 'clearly unprecedented.'
For starters, the proposed reconciliation bill would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution standards for cars and trucks. Although some have referred to these standards as an 'electric vehicle mandate,' they really just require cleaner vehicles, whether powered by gasoline or electricity.
EPA's analysis suggests that the rule will likely spur automakers to manufacture and sell more EVs, which, in addition to reducing pollution, will also help create jobs and grow the economy.
These EPA standards are projected to provide a stunning $1.9 trillion in health, climate and other benefits over the coming decades and will save hundreds of billions of dollars for consumers because electricity is cheaper than gasoline and EVs require so much less maintenance.
Despite these benefits, proponents of repeal will argue that there are budget effects from removing the standards. They will point to projections that American families will pay more in federal gas taxes and receive less in incentives for EVs if automakers bring fewer EVs to market.
But these kinds of indirect budget effects are analogous to the effects of the 2021 minimum wage proposal. The Senate parliamentarian should thus find that repealing pollution standards is not compliant with the Senate budget rules.
Unfortunately, the emerging bill looks like it will have many provisions that don't belong in a budget bill. Even as Congress attempts to cut the healthcare safety net for Americans, they are creating a new safety net for gas and coal companies so that the American taxpayer backs up uneconomic investments they may make.
The bill singles out gas pipelines for special help from the federal government, ensuring their approval within one year, even if the pipeline would not be approvable under current law. Another provision states that if a gas company pays a $1 million fee, it can export as much gas as it chooses, even if those exports are not in the public interest.
The list goes on.
This radical set of policy proposals fails the test that Graham set in 2021. They put the business plans of fossil fuel companies ahead of the health and welfare of American families.
Fortunately, just as happened in 2021 with the minimum wage proposal, these provisions should be stripped out of the bill prior to congressional passage. That is, of course, if Senate rules hold and Republicans respect the traditions and precedent of the body.
Greg Dotson is an associate professor at the University of Oregon School of Law. Dotson served as the chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2021 and 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
16 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's post, made as his Republican White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction.' The post also revives a long-running grievance by Trump that the election was stolen even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history.' It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Attorney General Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by Biden and by Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. ___
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California to examine its Amazon oil ties following pleas from Indigenous leaders from Ecuador
RICHMOND, California — An oil tanker sat docked at Chevron's sprawling refinery in Richmond on Thursday — a visible link between California's appetite for Amazon crude and the remote rainforest territories where it's extracted. Just offshore, bundled in puffy jackets against the Bay wind, Indigenous leaders from Ecuador's Amazon paddled kayaks through choppy waters, calling attention to the oil expansion threatening their lands. Their visit to California helped prompt the state Senate to introduce a landmark resolution urging officials to examine the state's role in importing crude from the Amazon. The move comes as Ecuador's government prepares to auction off 14 new oil blocks — covering more than 2 million hectares of rainforest, much of it Indigenous territory — in a 2026 bidding round known as 'Sur Oriente.' The Indigenous leaders say the move goes against the spirit of a national referendum in which Ecuadorians voted to leave crude oil permanently underground in Yasuni National Park. The preservation push in Ecuador comes as another South American country that includes part of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil, is moving ahead with plans to further develop oil resources. On Tuesday, Brazil auctioned off several land and offshore potential oil sites near the Amazon River as it aims to expand production in untapped regions despite protests from environmental and Indigenous groups. Juan Bay, president of the Waorani people of Ecuador, said that his delegation's coming to California was 'important so that our voices, our stance, and our struggle can be elevated' and urged Californians to reexamine the source of their crude from the Amazon — 'from Waorani Indigenous territory.' On Thursday, the Indigenous delegation joined local Californians in Richmond for a kayaking trip near a Chevron refinery, sharing stories about the Amazon and perspectives on climate threats. For Nadino Calapucha, a spokesperson for the Kichwa Pakkiru people, the visit to California's Bay Area was deeply moving. Spotting seals in the water and a bird's nest nearby felt ¨like a gesture of solidarity from nature itself,' he told The Associated Press on a kayak. 'It was as if the animals were welcoming us,' he said. The connection between the Amazon and California — both facing environmental threats — was palpable, Calapucha said. 'Being here with our brothers and sisters, with the local communities also fighting — in the end, we feel that the struggle is the same,' he said. California is the largest global consumer of Amazon oil, with much of it refined and used in the state as fuel. Ecuador is the region's top producer of onshore crude. Bay highlighted a March 2025 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that Ecuador had violated the rights of the area's Indigenous groups by allowing oil operations in and around a site known as Block 43. The court ordered the government to halt extraction in protected areas and uphold the 2023 referendum banning drilling in Yasuni National Park, where the country's largest crude reserve lies, estimated at around 1.7 billion barrels. Bay appealed to the California government to reconsider if it 'should continue receiving crude from the Amazon' — or continue to be 'complicit in the violation of rights' happening on Indigenous territory. State Senator Josh Becker, who introduced the new resolution, praised the visiting leaders for defending both their land and the global climate. 'Their communities are on the front lines asserting their rights and resisting oil extraction,' Becker said on the Senate floor on Monday. 'They are defenders of a living rainforest that stores carbon, regulates the global climate, and sustains life.' Long criticized by environmental justice advocates, the refinery has processed millions of barrels of Amazon crude, fueling concerns over pollution, public health, and the state's role in rainforest destruction. The delegation also helped launch a new report by Amazon Watch, an Oakland-based non-profit dedicated to the protection of the Amazon Basin, which outlines the climate, legal and financial risks of operating in Indigenous territories without consent. Kevin Koenig, Amazon Watch's director for climate, energy and extraction industry, said the impacts of Amazon crude extend far beyond Ecuador. He joined the Ecuadorian delegation on the kayaking trip on Thursday. 'The Golden State, if it wants to be a climate leader, needs to take action,' he told AP. 'California has an addiction to Amazon crude.' Californians need to 'recognize their responsibility and their complicity in driving demand for Amazon crude and the impact that that is having on Indigenous people, on their rights, on the biodiversity and the climate,' he added. California's future is closely tied to the Amazon's — the state relies on the rainforest's role in climate regulation and rainfall, Koenig said, warning that continued Amazon crude imports contribute to the very destruction increasing California's vulnerability to drought and wildfires. He said environmental and public health damage tied to oil drilling is not confined to South America. 'We're seeing the same impacts from the oil well to the wheel here in California, where communities are suffering from contamination, health impacts, dirty water,' he said. 'It's time that California lead an energy transition.' California, one of the world's largest economies and a major importer of Amazon crude, must take stronger climate action, Koenig added and called on the state to phase out its reliance on oil linked to deforestation, human rights abuses, pollution, and climate damage. The resolution commends the Indigenous communities of Ecuador for their struggle in defending the rainforest and Indigenous rights. It also marks the first time California would examine how its energy consumption may contribute to the region's deforestation and cultural loss. The resolution is expected to be up for a vote within a few weeks, according to Koenig. Grattan and Vasquez write for the Associated Press.
