I think the precondition to Manchin's vote on the IRA is not "passing permitting reform" it is "securing commitments from Pelosi and Schumer to work towards passage of permitting reform". I think the IRA vote will come first. Manchin is taking a leap of faith.
Anyway, after that point Republicans have less reason to oppose. Although wi…
I think the precondition to Manchin's vote on the IRA is not "passing permitting reform" it is "securing commitments from Pelosi and Schumer to work towards passage of permitting reform". I think the IRA vote will come first. Manchin is taking a leap of faith.
Anyway, after that point Republicans have less reason to oppose. Although with the hissy fit they threw on the burn pits legislation, who knows.
All I can tell you is what I read this morning in the WSJ, which says: "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) say the permitting measure will be included in a companion bill to their surprise $369 billion climate-and-tax deal unveiled last week."
His Fox News interview this weekend very much implied that it was a handshake deal and based on trust, which signaled to me that there was not a formal deliverable from Schumer *before* Manchin's vote, but we'll see how things shake out.
Found this quote: "Schumer said that the agreement on $369 billion in climate spending included commitments from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the White House to attempt to include the provision in a separate stopgap funding bill Congress will need to pass in September to sustain government operations." https://www.eenews.net/articles/democrats-open-to-manchins-push-for-permitting-reform/ [not sure what that website is, admittedly]
Interesting, but perhaps what they mean is they want to include the main climate/tax bill in with the stopgap spending bill. I don't think they could mean Manchin's separate permitting bill, because the parliamentarian would kick that piece out as not spending-related and therefore not to be included in a reconciliation bill.
correct, the permitting bill can't be in reconciliation, that's why I believe it refers to an entirely separate piece of legislation. I'm not saying I know all of the details, but the commitment in Schumer's joint statement was to "pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year," and Manchin's statement said that Pelosi/Schumer/Biden had "committed to advancing" permitting legislation.
This is all to say, I believe, and am hopeful, that your original statement that "Manchin has made it clear that his vote is contingent upon passing a separate piece of legislation" is incorrect. He secured assurances, and I do not think Pelosi/Schumer would back out of those assurances, but it does not appear to be a precondition that permitting be sequenced first, eliminating the incentive you theorized Republicans would have to block permitting.
Well, just to be clear, not my statement, just quoting what was in the WSJ. :-) If you're correct, then I'd love to know what Manchin is thinking. If he only asked for and received a promise to "move the permitting bill forward," does he think that bill could clear the fillibuster? Or did he just make the deal knowing that if it didn't, he could throw up his hands and say, "I tried," and blame the Republicans for blocking something they'd otherwise support. He doesn't strike me as someone who would agree to the overall package if he had the latter view (assuming in fact he doesn't have a companion bill commitment). Hmm.
I think the precondition to Manchin's vote on the IRA is not "passing permitting reform" it is "securing commitments from Pelosi and Schumer to work towards passage of permitting reform". I think the IRA vote will come first. Manchin is taking a leap of faith.
Anyway, after that point Republicans have less reason to oppose. Although with the hissy fit they threw on the burn pits legislation, who knows.
All I can tell you is what I read this morning in the WSJ, which says: "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) say the permitting measure will be included in a companion bill to their surprise $369 billion climate-and-tax deal unveiled last week."
His Fox News interview this weekend very much implied that it was a handshake deal and based on trust, which signaled to me that there was not a formal deliverable from Schumer *before* Manchin's vote, but we'll see how things shake out.
Found this quote: "Schumer said that the agreement on $369 billion in climate spending included commitments from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the White House to attempt to include the provision in a separate stopgap funding bill Congress will need to pass in September to sustain government operations." https://www.eenews.net/articles/democrats-open-to-manchins-push-for-permitting-reform/ [not sure what that website is, admittedly]
Interesting, but perhaps what they mean is they want to include the main climate/tax bill in with the stopgap spending bill. I don't think they could mean Manchin's separate permitting bill, because the parliamentarian would kick that piece out as not spending-related and therefore not to be included in a reconciliation bill.
correct, the permitting bill can't be in reconciliation, that's why I believe it refers to an entirely separate piece of legislation. I'm not saying I know all of the details, but the commitment in Schumer's joint statement was to "pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year," and Manchin's statement said that Pelosi/Schumer/Biden had "committed to advancing" permitting legislation.
This is all to say, I believe, and am hopeful, that your original statement that "Manchin has made it clear that his vote is contingent upon passing a separate piece of legislation" is incorrect. He secured assurances, and I do not think Pelosi/Schumer would back out of those assurances, but it does not appear to be a precondition that permitting be sequenced first, eliminating the incentive you theorized Republicans would have to block permitting.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, just to be clear, not my statement, just quoting what was in the WSJ. :-) If you're correct, then I'd love to know what Manchin is thinking. If he only asked for and received a promise to "move the permitting bill forward," does he think that bill could clear the fillibuster? Or did he just make the deal knowing that if it didn't, he could throw up his hands and say, "I tried," and blame the Republicans for blocking something they'd otherwise support. He doesn't strike me as someone who would agree to the overall package if he had the latter view (assuming in fact he doesn't have a companion bill commitment). Hmm.