As a drippy day dawns in Washington, Team Obama is suiting up for a full-court press on climate change. Three cabinet secretaries — from Energy, Transportation and Interior departments — the head of the EPA and the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Five — are headed for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the first of three full days of hearings.

As those hearings go forward, President Barack Obama is announcing a $3.4 billion program to build a “smart” electric grid, which would among other things carry solar and wind power, which are free of carbon emissions.

It’s all meant to convince international climate negotiators that Washington is serious about tackling climate change. A global gathering set for Copenhagen in December aims to set up a system to curb climate-warming carbon emissions after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. For months, environmental activists have looked to the Copenhagen meeting as a deadline for action. But now, the deadline is looking a bit blurry.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appeared to acknowledge this when he told business leaders in Seattle on Monday, “We will do our best and try to have a substantive agreement (in Copenhagen) … After Copenhagen we may not expect … to agree on all elements. But we should have a broad agreement.”

Ban’s climate adviser made clear the secretary-general was planning for “post-Copenhagen” talks.

The international environmental community has said repeatedly that the United States needs to take the lead in forging a global climate agreement. But what would show U.S. leadership? Does a climate change bill have to come to a vote in the Senate? Does it just have to get out to committee? Does it need to land on the president’s desk before the Copenhagen meeting? Is it enough that legislation seems to be moving forward?

And an even more basic question: do you agree that the United States needs to lead on this? If so, would it make a difference if Obama attends the Copenhagen meeting? (He’s going to be in the neighborhood anyway to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.)

Let us know what you think.

For more Reuters political news, click here.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Jason Reed (President Barack Obama looks at a model of a wind turbine at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 23, 2009)

REUTERS/Ray Stubblebine (University of Pittsburgh Panthers guard Antonio Graves fights a full-court press by Louisville Cardinals guard Andre McGee in Big East Tournament game in New York’s Madison Square Garden, March 8, 2006)

The sweeping legislation unveiled in the U.S. Senate today aims to curb climate change, arguably one of the biggest tasks ever undertaken on this planet. But it's a bill that runs to more than 800 pages, and hidden in its folds is a provision that could turn a noted symbol of New York City -- the yellow taxicab -- green.

And it wouldn't just be in New York. Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and other major U.S. cities would be able to create taxi fleets made up entirely of hybrid vehicles under the proposed Green Taxis Act of 2009.

Offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who now fills Hillary Clinton's former seat in the Senate, the measure aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 296,000 tons in New York City alone, which its sponsors say would be like taking some 35,000 cars off the road and save drivers $4,500 annually in gas costs.

“By creating an all hybrid taxi fleet, we can improve air quality and lower carbon emissions," Gillibrand said in a statement. "As a mother with an asthmatic child, I believe this is a win-win for our children and our efforts to combat climate change.”

That has to be a good thing, and it's not exactly unheard of. A quick search for "green taxi" turns up nearly 70,000 hits. But will New Yorkers say "Fuhgeddaboutit"? Will the Taxi and Limousine Commission oppose it? WIll preservationists balk at changing what has become a durable talisman of life in the Big Apple? Or will New York residents (and other residents of other cities where this law could apply) embrace their inner environmentalists?

Let the debate begin!

Photo credits: REUTERS/Eric Thayer (Taxis drive past carbon counting sign on Deutsche Bank building in Manhattan, June 18, 2009)

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (New York City skyline, Sept 2, 2009)

Former Democratic Party Chairman Paul Kirk has a few months in his new job to help accomplish what his friend, the late Senator Edward Kennedy, devoted much of his life to: Trying to provide affordable healthcare to all Americans.

Kirk was sworn in on Friday to take the Senate seat held for 47 years by Kennedy, his party’s liberal lion and leading advocate for healthcare reform.

The ascension of Kirk again gives Democrats, provided they stick together, the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to clear Republican procedural roadblocks.

This could be critical in a pending Senate floor fight over efforts to expand healthcare, which Kennedy had called “the cause of my life.”

Kirk was sworn in a day after Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick named him as Kennedy’s temporary successor until voters elect a new senator in January.

Kirk took the oath just hours after a judge in Massachusetts rejected a request by Republicans for an injunction to prevent him from taking office.

Kirk was administered the oath in the Senate by Vice President Joe Biden.

“Congratulations senator,” Biden told a smiling Kirk after he officially joined the Senate, often referred to as “the world’s most exclusive club and deliberative body.”

Kirk shook hands and exchanged hugs with a number of lawmakers, including Kennedy’s son, Patrick, a member of the House of Representatives who came to the Senate to witnesses the swearing in of his father’s successor.

Kirk, who served as Democratic Party chairman from 1985 until 1989, is seen as a somewhat of a natural to take over the Senate seat.

An eloquent speaker who was master of ceremonies at a memorial service for Kennedy last month, he has in-depth knowledge of Washington politics.

Kirk also supports Democratic efforts backed by President Barack Obama to overhaul the nation’s $2.5 trillion healthcare system.

For more Reuters political news, click here.

Photo credit: Reuters/Hyungwon Kang (Kirk takes oath of office from Biden)

The Kennedy family is the only one to send three brothers to the U.S. Senate, and the fallen trio now has one of the most historic rooms on Capitol Hill named in their honor.

Without dissent, the Senate approved a resolution on Monday to rename the Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building “The Kennedy Caucus Room.”

Measuring 74 feet by 54 feet, the Russell Room is one of the oldest and largest Senate assembly rooms outside the U.S. Capitol. Featuring three chandeliers, it has hosted hearings on the sinking of the Titanic cruise ship (1912), the Watergate scandal (1973), and the explosive confirmation hearings for then Supreme Court-nominee Clarence Thomas that involved charges of sexual harassment (1991).

Edward Kennedy, one of the most effective U.S. lawmakers ever, died of cancer last month following nearly a half century in the Senate. In 1962, he was elected to the Senate seat earlier held by his older brother, President John Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963.

Five years later, Robert Kennedy — elected to the Senate after serving as President Kennedy’s U.S. attorney general — was assassinated during his own run for the White House.

Earlier this year, in the same room, the Senate health committee, which Edward Kennedy had chaired, approved a bill that became an initial marker in the mushrooming battle to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system.

“May the Kennedy Caucus Room stand as a monument to three brothers who devoted their considerable talent and energy to serving the country that they loved, and that loved them back,” said Senator Chris Dodd, a chief sponsor of the resolution.

He warned that the U.S. government must not be in a position to “pull the plug on grandma.”

But Senator Charles Grassley, a leading Republican who could be key to President Barack Obama’s hopes of overhauling healthcare, acknowledged on Sunday that so-called “death panels” weren’t really a possibility anyway.

Grassley, the leading Republican in the Senate Finance Committee, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that his well-publicized comment about pulling the plug was only meant to convey the fears of voters.

“It won’t do that. But I wanted to explain why my constituents are concerned about it,” Grassley said.

He was quoted saying earlier this month that “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”

He struggled a bit when asked to explain why he made the comments in the first place: “I said that because — two reasons. Number one, I was responding to a question at my town meetings. I let my constituents set the agenda. A person that asked me that question was reading from language that they got off of the Internet. It scared my constituents…”

Obama expressed outrage on Saturday about persistent rumors about the government-run “death panels” — an issue most notably raised by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee last year.

“As every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called ‘death panels’ — an offensive notion to me and to the American people,” Obama said. “These are phony claims meant to divide us.”
The issue stems from a provision in a House of Representatives bill that would have provided government funding for optional counseling on end-of-life care issues such as hospice.

Obama’s healthcare plan has been hit from both sides, with liberal members of his own party pushing for major changes while Republicans and conservative Democrats fret about cost and government involvement. The debate likely will intensify next month when Congress returns from its summer recess.

Do you think Grassley’s acknowledgement will help end the debate over death panels?

For those holding out hope that healthcare reform and climate change legislation would not squeeze out efforts to overhaul the broken U.S. immigration system this year, think again.

At the “Three Amigos Summit” in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama all but ruled out legislation passing this year, particularly since his top initiative — healthcare — has been put off until September and there still remains work to be done on climate change. And, oh yes, fixing the U.S. financial regulatory system too.

“That’s a pretty big stack of bills,” Obama told reporters alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “I would anticipate that before the year is out, we will have draft (immigration) legislation, along with sponsors potentially in the House and the Senate who are ready to move this forward.”

“And when we come back next year, that we should be in a position to start acting,” he said, adding that it would require bipartisan cooperation — of which there has been little lately in Congress.

Obama repeated his desire for reforming the immigration system in a way that bolsters border security, creates a system to permit people into the United States and gives the 12 million illegal immigrants a way to eventually become citizens.

New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who chairs the Senate immigration subcommittee, has said he would like to try to get immigration legislation done this year but has previously acknowledged it would be a tough slog to do that given everything else on the agenda.

The ranking Republican, Texas Senator John Cornyn, has pressed the administration to offer specifics about its plan for reform before Congress acts.

Click here for more Reuters political coverage.

- Photo credit: Reuters/Tomas Bravo (A U.S.-Mexico border crossing)

Nine months after losing the U.S. presidential election to Democrat Barack Obama, Republican John McCain is still taking center stage to voice disagreement with his former U.S. Senate colleague.

On Monday, McCain announced in a Senate speech that he would vote against Obama’s first U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, a federal judge for the past 17 years.

“She is an immensely qualified candidate,” McCain conceded.

But he added: “I do not believe that she shares my belief in judicial restraint.”

Echoing the concerns of a number of Senate Republican leaders, McCain complained she has ruled based not strictly by the law but also personal beliefs.

Despite a wall of Republican opposition, Sotomayor seems virtually certain to be confirmed this week by the Democratic-led Senate.

The American Bar Association gave Sotomayor its top rating, she has been supported by a number of law enforcement groups, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which often sides with Republicans, urged the Senate to confirm her, saying her record shows that she would be fair to business.

McCain said he monitored Sotomayor’s testimony at her Senate confirmation hearing last month. He said liked what he heard, but didn’t necessarily believe it.

“She clearly stated that ‘as a judge, I don’t make law.’ While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record as an appellate court judge.”

“As an appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court six times,” McCain said.

McCain lost to Obama after issuing countless warnings about the now popular president. He put out another warning on Monday — this one to fellow lawmakers.

“The American people will be watching this week when the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. She is a judge who has forsworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it,” McCain said.

“If she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us senators accountable,” McCain said.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (Obama and McCain talk at a recent meeting)

President Barack Obama is pushing hard to get health care reform back on track after it veered a bit off course while he was in Europe last week.

He has spent the better part of the week pushing the issue. First he went after “nay-sayers and cynics,” warning them “don’t bet against us.”

“I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone: We are going to get this done,” he said. “Inaction is not an option.”

Then he stood with nursing leaders in the Rose Garden and tried to buck people up.

“It’s time for us to buck up Congress, this administration, the entire federal government to be clear that we’ve got to get this done,” Obama said. “Our nurses are on board. The American people are on board. It’s now up to us.”

The last couple of days he has been meeting with lawmakers, listening to their concerns about the legislation and prodding them to action — not always to good effect.

Maine Senator Olympia Snowe said she told the president Thursday his goal of passing a bill early August wasn’t realistic.

“It is important for us to take the time to work through these issues,” she said after a White House visit. “I thought it was overly ambitious to accomplish passing it on the Senate floor before the August recess.”

Obama would like the House and the Senate to pass their versions of the legislation before beginning a month-long break in early August.

That would put them on track to reconcile the two measures in September and send Obama a final bill by his target date of mid-October.

One big hitch is how to pay the $1 trillion 10-year price tag.

Obama wants to pay for it primarily by wringing savings out the current system, which costs $2.4 trillion annually, twice that of any other nation. He’s suggested hundreds of billions in cuts and savings.

If additional revenue is needed, he has proposed reducing itemized tax deductions for those earning over $250,000.

The House measure would impose a tax on families with incomes greater than $350,000. The tax begins at 1 percent and hits 5.4 percent for millionaires. It would raise $544 billion over 10 years.

Some senators favor taxing more lavish employer-paid health insurance benefits. Workers are not currently taxed on payments their employers make for health insurance, which makes it a popular benefit. Obama opposes taxing insurance benefits, so the Senate is not considering other tax measures.

What do you think? Are we moving too fast on health care reform, and what’s the best way to pay for it?

For more Reuters political news, click here.

Photo credit: Reuters/Larry Downing (Obama boards Marine One on Thursday)

Senate Democrats will take up healthcare again today after a tough week.

Republican opposition is building after independent auditors estimated their initial efforts could cost more and cover fewer than initially hoped, reducing the chance of winning the bipartisan support that could ensure that any reforms will last.

Republican Sen. John McCain gave Reuters a grim prognosis last Friday and said the next few days will determine whether the effort succeeds or fails.

But Democratic Sen. Max Baucus still thinks he can get a bipartisan bill to President Obama by the end of the year.

Today, the Senate Health Committee, which is working on a bill that is likely to be less Republican-friendly than Baucus’s effort, will resume work on its bill at 3 p.m.

Folks at the White House have healthcare on the agenda today as well.

President Obama will sign a bill that establishes significantly tougher tobacco regulations in a Rose Garden ceremony.

And Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and two other White House officials appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to rebut Republican claims that their plan will lead to greater bureaucracy and a reduced level of care.

photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (Obama apeaks tothe American Medical Association in Chicago, June 15)

For more Reuters political coverage, click here.

Sure it’s a long way before the November 2010 U.S. congressional election — and a lot can happen between now and then. But at this point, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada seems to be in jeopardy of becoming the second Senate leader in a half century to be voted out of office.

A poll released on Tuesday by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found that half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view, the newspaper said.

Reid won reelection in 2004 to a fourth term with 61 percent of the vote. But his approval ratings have since slipped. He became Senate Democratic leader in 2005, and majority leader in 2007.

“Harry Reid could be in trouble,” said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington.

Duffy said Reid faces the dangers of being a Senate leader while his party controls the White House.

“You have to be in tune with the White House as well as your constituents,” Duffy said.

Still, Duffy said, she now rates his race as “likely Democrat.” But she noted that’s largely because Reid doesn’t yet have a Republican opponent.

The statewide poll of 625 Nevadans was conducted by telephone last week by the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc., for the Nevada newspaper. With Democrats now holding 59 of 100 Senate seats, Reid could lose and his party could still end up retaining control the chamber in next year’s election.

Senate leaders are among the most powerful members of Congress and have routinely won their reelection. But in recent years they have faced unhappy constituents. Polls showed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in trouble much of last year. He rallied down the stretch, however, and won a fifth term with 53 percent of the vote.

Democrat Tom Daschle of South Dakota was the last Senate leader to be ousted. He was unseated in 2004 as a top target of Republicans who branded him “the chief obstructionist” to then President George W. Bush’s conservative agenda.

Reid’s campaign manager brushed off the new Nevada poll.

“The primary number Senator Reid is worried about is Nevada’s 10.4 percent unemployment rate, and that’s why he’s focused on fixing the economy and creating jobs in Nevada,” Brandon Hall was quoted as saying by the Review-Journal. “Polling numbers move up and down. The only poll that really matters is on Election Day.”

REUTERS/Jason Reed      (U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada)