Republicans' ‘clearly unprecedented' gambit to kill climate programs
House Republicans want to use their sprawling budget reconciliation bill not only to zero out climate programs — but also to make it harder for subsequent Congresses to restore them.
The budget bill the House Energy and Commerce Committee released Sunday night would pull back about $6.5 billion in unspent grant funding for green energy finance, clean manufacturing, community pollution abatement and carbon-cutting projects at ports and schools.
It would also repeal the authorizing language for the 17 programs that it targets.
Advertisement
Bill Hoagland, who served as director of budget and appropriations for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), called that move 'clearly unprecedented.'
'I have never seen in my career any reconciliation language that would strike authorization language for a discretionary program,' he said.
The gambit is risky, given the strict rules of the budget reconciliation process. But it would have some practical advantages for Republicans if it succeeds.
A subsequent Congress and administration would have a harder time restoring funding for programs like EPA's $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund or $7 billion Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program — both of which the Energy and Commerce proposal would terminate.
'It's always better to still have authorizations on the books, because it's always easier to get funding for existing authorizations instead of starting from a complete blank slate,' said Adrian Deveny, a former aide for Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The repeals would also let Republicans claim credit for killing programs they've decried as wasteful and corrupt, even as they rescind only a fraction of the programs' funding. The Energy and Commerce Committee is not attempting to claw back the lion's share of grants, which are already under contract; committee spokesman Ben Mullany said Monday that the panel would 'continue to honor the obligated funds.'
Language to repeal program authorizations may survive the House. But Hoagland said it probably won't square with the Senate's strict rules for the kinds of policy provisions that can move through budget reconciliation.
Republicans are using the reconciliation process to move their bill to avoid a filibuster by Senate Democrats. It's the same maneuver Democrats used in 2022 to enact the climate spending law, because it allows legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote.
But Senate rules extend this privilege only to provisions that raise or spend revenue. And while the Energy and Commerce language rescinding unspent climate law dollars will pass muster, experts say the deauthorization language probably won't.
'Striking language that simply authorizes appropriations but doesn't do anything to appropriate funds doesn't have any budgetary impact, and that therefore violates the Byrd rule,' said Hoagland, referring to a long-established procedural rule named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), a former chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The rule prohibits the inclusion of 'extraneous' policy provisions in a bill that moves through reconciliation.
But whether or not Republicans succeed in revoking program authorizations, supporters of the climate law say the loss of unobligated funds will have consequences.
EPA, for example, has already obligated much of the money the climate law appropriated for grant programs. What's left at the agency is mostly its grant-management and oversight budgets — which were small to begin with.
'Members of Congress expect programs to be implemented and crises addressed even when the budget for staff is cut,' said Zealan Hoover, a former Biden administration official who led Inflation Reduction Act implementation at EPA. 'If I was still at EPA I would be very worried about the volume of angry Hill calls coming if anything close to this budget is enacted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces $1,000 government-funded accounts for American babies
Donald Trump unveiled a federal program Monday providing $1,000 government-funded investment accounts for American babies, getting backing from top business leaders who said they plan to contribute billions more to an initiative tied to 'the big beautiful bill'. At a White House roundtable with over a dozen CEOs, including from Uber, Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies, Trump relayed the details of 'Trump accounts' – tax-deferred investment accounts tracking stock market performance for children born between 2025 and 2029. 'For every US citizen born after December 31, 2024, before January 1, 2029, the federal government will make a one-time contribution of $1,000 into a tax-deferred account that will track the overall stock market,' Trump said. The accounts will be controlled by guardians and allow additional private contributions up to $5,000 annually. Trump called it 'a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation'. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is built on falsehoods about low-income families | Brigid Schulte and Haley Swenson CEOs from major companies including Michael Dell, Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, and Vladimir Tenev of Robinhood committed billions for employees' children's accounts. Trump praised the executives as 'really the greatest business minds we have today' who are 'committed to contributing millions of dollars to the Trump account'. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, also at the roundtable, championed the program, saying: 'It's a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one. Republicans are proud to be the party we always have been. It supports life and families, prosperity and opportunity.' The program passed the House as part of a massive budget bill but faces stiffer Senate Republican resistance over the broader package. The accounts cannot be implemented as a standalone program and depend entirely on passage of what Trump calls the 'one big, beautiful bill' that is 'among the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history', claiming it's 'fully funded through targeted reforms' including welfare changes and a proposed remittance tax. However, the congressional budget office last week found the bill would also add $2.4tn to the national debt over the next decade while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. The CBO analysis showed the bill, which passed the House by a single vote and no Democratic support, would leave 10.9 million more Americans without healthcare by 2034. The treasury-funded accounts, previously called 'Maga accounts' resemble existing 529 college plans but with lower contribution limits – leading some financial advisers to say the Trump accounts may not offer the best investment incentives. The move is also not without precedent: the United Kingdom operated a similar Child Trust Fund with government seed funding from 2002-2011 before discontinuing the program, while Singapore runs the Baby Bonus Scheme that includes government-matched savings accounts for children. Trump was optimistic about returns, saying beneficiaries would 'really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies into the future'. Johnson warned that failure to pass the legislation would result in 'the largest tax increase in American history' and pushed for swift congressional action on what he called 'pro-growth legislation' that would 'help every single American'. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill
Jun. 10—ALBANY — The New York state legislature has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a program supporters are calling "medical aid in dying." On Monday evening, with just a few days left for voting for the scheduled legislative session, the state Senate voted to pass its copy of the legislation. The state Assembly passed it earlier this year, and the bill now awaits Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul's decision to sign, veto or amend the legislation. Under the terms of the bill, people with a terminal illness who have an estimated six months or less before their disease will kill them can ask their physician for a prescription for life-ending drugs, which they can take home and consume on their own. The legislation has some protections, requiring a physician to evaluate the patient's ability to make decisions and refer them for psychiatric evaluation if there are questions over capacity. Patients have to make an oral and written request for the life-ending drugs, and the request be witnessed by two adults who are not closely related to the patient or likely to benefit after their death. It also permits medical professionals to recuse themselves from requests for medically assisted suicide, ordering them to refer requests they refuse to other doctors. Supporters of the bill say it will give New Yorkers suffering from terminal illnesses a safe, humane way to end their lives. They point to cases where terminally ill people have chosen to stop eating or drinking or chosen to end their lives in other, not legally sanctioned ways. Opponents of the bill raise concerns over the message it sends to sick people, that they should choose death rather than fight for their health, as well as practical concerns over whether the medication that would be prescribed could be a health hazard if not properly stored. They also expressed concerns over the bill's approach to how the death will be recorded. Under the bill's terms, someone who takes advantage of the program would have their cause of death listed as their terminal illness, not the ingestion of life-ending drugs. They also raised concerns over the lack of post-dispensation tracking for the lethal drugs, raising concerns they could be misused. The bill has circulated in Albany for nearly a decade, going most years without a floor vote in either chamber. Just last year, it lacked majority support in the Senate, but a successful lobbying effort this year pushed it to approval in the Assembly and now in the Senate. Debate stretched into Monday evening, with detractors in the Senate expressing concern. Sen. Steven D. Rhoads, R-Nassau, questioned why the bill doesn't include a specific requirement that doctors review a patient's medical records before prescribing the medication. "There is nothing in the bill that requires that," he said during floor debate. But proponents of the bill said it's a meaningful step towards medical autonomy and the right to choose — Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said that some identified gaps in the bill will be filled in the regulation-crafting process with the state Department of Health, which will be tasked with overseeing the implementation and authorization necessary to allow New York doctors and pharmacies to dispense these lethal medications. The lobbying isn't over yet. A major opponent of the bill, the New York State Catholic Conference, took to the halls of the Capitol on Monday in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill's chances in the Senate. Their effort was unsuccessful, but they've continued to push the governor to reject the bill. Sen. Mark C. Walczyk, R-Sackets Harbor, said in a statement that he was sad to see the bill pass. "I have tremendous sympathy for those with terminal illnesses and respect families who face end-of-life decisions," Walczyk said in a statement. "This legislation lacks critical protections for the vulnerable, structurally incentivizes suicide, and devalues human life. We need only look at the examples of states and nations that have promoted this policy. Instead of providing an option for individuals to end their lives, we should focus on improving health care for the vulnerable and enhancing hospice and palliative care for the terminally ill to ensure that every New Yorker has access to compassionate support during their most vulnerable moments, rather than offering a misguided solution that encourages despair."
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voting rights, access bills stopped in the Alabama Legislature
Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville (right, at lectern) raises his hand during a debate in the Alabama House of Representatives on March 6, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. Jackson filed an early voting bill this session, which was not considered by a committee, along with other voting-related bills. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) A collection of bills aimed to enhance voting access in Alabama were never considered by committees during the 2025 legislative session, but advocates say the fight for enhanced voting rights in Alabama is not over HB 59, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, would have required one early voting precinct in each county for one week before Election Day. According to a study by the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), about 70% of the ballots cast nationwide in 2020 were cast before Election Day, and 40% were cast before Election Day in 2016. In 2016, 25% of ballots nationwide were cast through early in-person voting, of the states that offer the option, according to the study. 'Senior citizens really brought it to my attention,' Jackson said in an interview on Monday. 'So I drafted it, and I put it the simplest way that I could do it: a week out before the election, four days prior to the elections, and nobody liked that. Republicans don't like that.' Alabama does not allow early voting and does not have no-excuse absentee voting. Amid the COVID pandemic in 2020, state leaders effectively allowed anyone to cast an absentee ballot, but that was rescinded after the election. The League of Women Voters of Alabama supported the measures. Kim Bailey, president of the league, said in an interview Thursday that the bills would expand access to voting in Alabama, which would increase voter turnout in the state. 'You can make a plan, but if something comes up on voting day, you may not be able to get to the ballot box,' Bailey said. 'Voting as a right and not a privilege. I think that's important that they'd be able to exercise that right.' In 2024, there were 3.7 million people registered to vote in Alabama, according to the Secretary of State's website. But only 2.2 million (59%) people voted in the 2024 Presidential election. That was significantly less than the national voter turnout of 88% in 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and the lowest percentage of Alabama voters to cast ballots in a presidential election since 1988. The bill was assigned to the House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee, but Rep. Bob Fincher, R-Woodland, chair of the committee, said he did not take HB 59 up in his committee because he is not in favor of early voting due to the cost to the state. 'It costs the state extra money when you vote early,' he said. 'If there's a change in the campaign, you cannot go back and change your vote.' The Legislative Services Agency did not provide a fiscal note for any of the election access related bills. Although a total cost is not available, Bailey said early voting would utilize state employees that are already working and would be held at locations that are already staffed. 'That wouldn't require a lot of infrastructure cost in those kinds of things, so depending on what the legislation that passes the cost could be not really very much,' Bailey said. Jackson said the potential cost to the state for a week of early voting would be much less than the cost to the state for unconstitutional bills and the congressional redistricting trial. In the state's General Fund budget, a $300,000 line item was added for 'reapportionment litigation fees.' 'We don't have an idea of the cost to the state. Look at all these lawsuits, these millions of dollars that are being paid to lawyers for these unconstitutional bills. That's a cost to the state,' Jackson said. 'See, they can come up with any excuse when they don't want something.' Jerome Dees, the Alabama policy director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in an interview Thursday that he was not surprised the bills were not considered. He said the state has been regressing in voting access and inclusivity for the last decade. 'This bill is really kind of an effort to try and present a new vision of what democracy can and should be in Alabama, which is kind of the home of the civil rights movement,' Dees said. In fact, Dees said the state's congressional redistricting trial has highlighted the need for more voter protections and access. 'The fact that not a single one of these bills that aimed to expand voter access to create oversight over the redistricting process, whether that's at the municipal level, drawing of city council districts or at the state and federal level,' Dees said. 'According to the federal courts, is obviously a problem, just based on recent rulings. The fact that the Legislature intentionally chose not to touch any of those, I think, is as telling as anything.' In 2021, the Alabama Legislature approved congressional district maps that were later challenged in court and struck down in 2022 by a three-judge panel, which ordered the districts to be redrawn. In 2023, the Legislature redrew the maps, which were again challenged by plaintiffs for not meeting the court's requirement of allowing Black voters to elect a candidate of their choice in a second district. The court struck down the 2023 map passed by the Legislature and appointed a special master to submit three potential remedial maps in time for the 2024 election. The Alabama Attorney General's Office said last month the state may forgo drawing new congressional district maps before 2030 to prevent federal oversight of future redistricting, pausing the redistricting for five years. HB 97, sponsored by Rep. Kenyatté Hassell, D-Montgomery, would have allowed voters to cure their absentee ballot affidavit if they submit them before the election and the absentee election manager finds an error. Currently, the ballots are set aside and not counted if election officials find a defect with the affidavits. Hassell said in an interview on Wednesday that the bill would have given absentee voters a better chance for their ballot to be counted. 'People were making mistakes on their ballots, and even though they didn't know they made mistakes,' he said. 'We might have people who voted on an absentee ballot for the last 20 years, and their vote never counted because they made the same mistake over and over again not knowing they made that mistake.' The bill was assigned to Fincher's committee, but Fincher said he did not take it up because of conversations with Hassell and the Secretary of State Wes Allen. 'I've been very clear, I believe in Election Day, not Election month,' Allen said in a statement Monday. Hassell raised concerns that the executive branch had control over what bills did or did not get taken up in committee. 'When one person in the executive branch has an agenda, that shouldn't dictate if we all feel like this is a good piece of legislation that'll help the citizens,' Hassell said. 'That's why we have a House. That's why we have a Senate.' HB 31, sponsored by Rep. Adline Clarke, D-Mobile, allows people with a disability, or those unable to read or write, to designate someone to assist them with delivering an absentee ballot application or the absentee ballot itself, to the election manager. Messages seeking comment from Clarke were left Wednesday and Monday. Dees and Bailey expect the bills to be filed again for the 2026 Legislative Session. 'We're going to keep filing this year, I'm gonna keep filing until something happens,' Jackson said. 'We just have to keep hitting that rock until they crack. That's why I'm still pushing it, because it's the right thing to do, and the people of the state want it.'
