As White House Nears Paris Decision, Hill Republicans Ease Opposition

After vowing to kill the deal, some Republicans weigh staying in.

AP Photo/Martin Meissner
Jason Plautz
Add to Briefcase
Jason Plautz
May 7, 2017, 8 p.m.

As the Trump White House fi­nal­izes its de­cision on wheth­er or not to re­main a party to the Par­is cli­mate-change deal, some Cap­it­ol Hill Re­pub­lic­ans are back­ing off their earli­er op­pos­i­tion, po­ten­tially im­per­il­ing one av­en­ue to re­view­ing or ex­it­ing the agree­ment.

Key White House ad­visers will con­tin­ue meet­ing this week on the mat­ter, ahead of a self-im­posed dead­line of the end of May, when the G7 coun­tries will con­vene. After meet­ings over the last two weeks, ad­visers re­main split over wheth­er to stay in and re­duce the U.S. com­mit­ment to the deal; or to split from the in­ter­na­tion­al agree­ment, in which coun­tries pledged to re­duce their do­mest­ic emis­sions to keep glob­al warm­ing be­low 1.5 de­grees Celsi­us.

Ax­ios re­por­ted last week that Pres­id­ent Trump’s daugh­ter and seni­or ad­viser, Ivanka Trump, who wants the U.S. to re­main in the deal, will meet Tues­day with En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency Ad­min­is­trat­or Scott Pruitt, who fa­vors ex­it­ing.

Much of the de­bate cen­ters around wheth­er the U.S. might be ob­lig­ated to lim­it emis­sions even fur­ther in the fu­ture, and wheth­er stay­ing in­volved could be used as leg­al fod­der for en­vir­on­ment­al­ists to com­pel Trump to main­tain Pres­id­ent Obama’s cli­mate policies.

Ul­ti­mately, though, the de­cision is a sym­bol­ic one. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion pledged to cut U.S. emis­sions by 26 to 28 per­cent be­low 2005 levels by the year 2025, through a series of policy meas­ures that the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion is work­ing to undo or cur­tail. Among them: the Clean Power Plan, lim­its on meth­ane from oil and gas, and fuel-eco­nomy stand­ards.

Without them, the coun­try is sure to miss its tar­get, but there are no pen­al­ties for do­ing so. Leav­ing the agree­ment, then, would ul­ti­mately be noth­ing more than a mes­saging move, one that some on Cap­it­ol Hill worry could be ill-ad­vised.

Take Sen. Shel­ley Moore Capito, the West Vir­gin­ia Re­pub­lic­an who helped lead an ef­fort in 2015 to block funds to United Na­tions cli­mate pro­grams un­less the Sen­ate got a chance to re­ject the Par­is deal. In an in­ter­view last week, Capito re­af­firmed her op­pos­i­tion to the un­der­ly­ing agree­ment, say­ing “it dis­ad­vant­ages our coun­try and cer­tainly my state.”

But when asked if the White House should send it to the Sen­ate for ap­prov­al, she eased off.

“We might be able to af­fect bet­ter change by stay­ing in, mean­ing that we can ne­go­ti­ate from with­in and have things make bet­ter sense for our coun­try,” Capito said.

That’s a sim­il­ar per­spect­ive to the one ex­pressed by a group of nine House Re­pub­lic­ans led by Rep. Kev­in Cramer of North Dakota, a key White House ally on en­ergy is­sues. In a let­ter, they said the U.S. should “use its seat at the Par­is table to de­fend and pro­mote our com­mer­cial in­terests,” but should “present a new pledge that does no harm to our eco­nomy.”

Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Susan Collins signed onto a let­ter with Demo­crat­ic Sen. Ben Cardin warn­ing that the U.S. could lose its com­pet­it­ive ad­vant­age by leav­ing the agree­ment (a Cardin aide said that the sen­at­or tried to re­cruit oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans, but none signed on). Even Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Chair­man Bob Cork­er told E&E News he was con­cerned about the dip­lo­mat­ic stakes of get­ting out of the agree­ment.

It’s quite a re­versal from the im­me­di­ate af­ter­math of the deal, when 13 Re­pub­lic­ans (in­clud­ing Capito) told the White House to let the Sen­ate re­ject it through a vote.

That reti­cence could take off the table a strategy be­ing pushed by con­ser­vat­ives, in which the White House would de­clare the Par­is agree­ment a treaty and send it to the Sen­ate for ap­prov­al. Marlo Lewis Jr., a seni­or fel­low at the Com­pet­it­ive En­ter­prise In­sti­tute, said that would send a stronger sig­nal than any ac­tion by the White House alone.

“It would not only make clear that this agree­ment lacks broad polit­ic­al sup­port … it would be dif­fi­cult for the next ex­ec­ut­ive to do what Pres­id­ent Obama did uni­lat­er­ally and use the stroke of a pen to put us back in,” Lewis said in an in­ter­view. “This is all about do­mest­ic le­gis­la­tion, not just for the next four years but the next 35 years. No pres­id­ent should be al­lowed to make this kind of com­mit­ment on be­half of the U.S. without the le­gis­lature.”

The deal was ori­gin­ally de­lib­er­ately craf­ted to sidestep Sen­ate ap­prov­al, since it does not con­tain leg­ally bind­ing pro­vi­sions (something the U.S. del­eg­a­tion ad­voc­ated, giv­en the polit­ic­al real­it­ies of the Sen­ate). A State De­part­ment memo be­ing cir­cu­lated as part of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de­cision makes a sim­il­ar case, say­ing that sub­mit­ting the deal to the Sen­ate would “sug­gest the ex­ist­ence of new lim­its on the pres­id­ent’s con­sti­tu­tion­al au­thor­ity to con­clude ex­ec­ut­ive agree­ments” and “would con­strain the pres­id­ent’s flex­ib­il­ity to con­clude ex­ec­ut­ive agree­ments in oth­er con­texts.”

The White House could also trig­ger an exit clause in the Par­is deal, which com­mences a three-year pro­cess, or bolt the un­der­ly­ing United Na­tions Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change, a one-year pro­cess.

There’s no guar­an­tee the deal would sur­vive a Sen­ate vote; En­vir­on­ment and Pub­lic Works Chair­man John Bar­rasso said in an in­ter­view that he would rather see Trump use his ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity but that the U.S. needed to leave, as did Sen. James In­hofe.

But Demo­crats are push­ing back. Cardin, along with the nine oth­er Demo­crats on the For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, in­tro­duced a res­ol­u­tion to af­firm sup­port for the agree­ment, ar­guing that leav­ing would set the coun­try be­hind its al­lies.

“If the pres­id­ent and his aides choose the path of an in­formed, fact-based de­cision about the na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests of the United States and the safety of the Amer­ic­an people, then the only de­cision that can be reached is not just to re­main in the Par­is Agree­ment, but to lead the world in achiev­ing the agree­ment’s bench­marks,” Cardin said. “It’s time to get ser­i­ous and not re­treat from this ex­ist­en­tial threat to the United States and hu­man­kind.”

What We're Following See More »
Trump Makes Good on Promise of New North Korea Sanctions
37 minutes ago

President Trump this afternoon announced another round of sanctions on North Korea, calling the regime "a continuing threat." The executive order, which Trump relayed to Congress, bans any ship or plane that has visited North Korea from visiting the United States within 180 days. The order also authorizes sanctions on any financial institution doing business with North Korea, and permits the secretaries of State and the Treasury to sanction any person involved in trading with North Korea, operating a port there, or involved in a variety of industries there.

Ivanka to Court Over $785 Sandals
1 hours ago
Trump Says He’ll Visit Puerto Rico
3 hours ago

"Seated next to Ukrainian President Poroshenko on his final day of meetings at the United Nations, Trump did not say when he might go to Puerto Rico, but spoke solemnly about the destruction to an island he said had been 'absolutely obliterated.'”

Trump Promises More Sanctions on North Korea
4 hours ago

In response to a reporter's question, President Trump said "he’ll be looking to impose further financial penalties on North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic tests. ... The U.N. has passed two resolutions recently aimed at squeezing the North Korean economy by cutting off oil, labor and exports to the nation." Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that South Korea's unification ministry is sending an $8m aid package aimed at infants and pregnant women in North Korea. The "humanitarian gesture [is] at odds with calls by Japan and the US for unwavering economic and diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang."

Irma Bad for Orange Juice Business
4 hours ago

Hurricane Irma "could even be the knockout blow for a product — orange juice — that has been slipping in popularity among Americans, although the beverage still ranks as the country's favorite 'fruit'...Ninety percent of the state’s $1 billion annual harvest is eventually processed into OJ." Per the executive director of the state citrus grower's association, "It’s somewhere between significant and catastrophic."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.