Democrats are facing heightened inter-party disputes with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) over a backroom deal that helped win Manchin’s support for the Inflation Reduction Act.
Specifically, Manchin agreed to lend his support to the bill—crucial for the bill’s eventual passage through the evenly divided Senate—in exchange for consideration at a later date of separate legislation that would grant some concessions to fossil fuels and would cut down on regulations of the industry.
The original deal with Manchin, negotiated between President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), it was agreed that Democrats would “pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year,” or Oct. 1.
But with the Inflation Reduction Act passed, some Democrats are getting cold feet about honoring that deal, which they say would undercut the effects of the approximately $400 billion in climate spending contained in the larger reconciliation bill.
Democrats, particularly in the House, have contended that they have no obligation to honor a backroom deal that they weren’t consulted about.
Some progressives have contended that the demands made by Manchin—including cuts to regulations that often can delay the construction of energy infrastructure projects for years and a $6.6 billion appropriation to help restart the stalled West Virginia Mountain Valley pipeline—threaten to undercut the climate goals of the $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act, which dedicates more than half of its new spending to climate policies.
Democrats have said these policies will lead to a long-term cut in U.S. carbon emissions of around 40 percent over their 2005 levels, a cut still ten percent short of the 50 percent emissions reduction requested by Biden at the start of his term.
To force passage of his demands, Manchin has insisted that they be passed as part of a stop-gap spending package.
If the package is not passed by Sept. 30, the government will go into a shutdown—an eventuality that Manchin has said he is comfortable with if his demands are not met.
Now, Democrats opposed to the fossil fuel concessions are doubling down on their position.
In a letter circulated to other House Democrats, House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) demanded that Manchin’s requested fossil fuel policies not be included as part of the continuing resolution (CR).
“Don’t attach it to a budget, to a CR, must-pass legislation and therefore take this essential Republican agenda and have Democrats pass it,” Grijalva told another media outlet prior to the release of the letter.
Theoretically, if a chunk of Democrats’ thin four-seat majority caucus share Grijalva’s attitude towards including the fossil fuel concessions in a CR, it could set the stage for a government shutdown.
However, just months out from a midterm season expected to be rough for Democrats, a shutdown is a bad look—and many Democrats may prefer simply to accept the deal rather than risk it.
In a statement to another media outlet, Grijalva insisted that he was not, in fact, trying to cause a government shutdown with the demand, but instead said he simply wanted the two to be separated.
“This is not trying to torpedo anything. This is saying the [CR] and the budget is critical, yes, but let’s do this other one where everybody is accountable,” Grijalva said.
Some other Democrats in the lower chamber have signaled similar attitudes against the “smoke-filled room” deal.
“If we want to streamline permitting for critically important projects that help solve the climate crisis there’s absolutely a conversation to be had and maybe a bill that would help with that, but this framework that came out of the smoke-filled room with Manchin and Schumer doesn’t work for me,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told another media outlet.
“You can tell members ‘if you vote against this you’re shutting down the government,’ but most of us are a little smarter than that and we know that you can have a backup CR ready to go that funds the government without all the fossil fuel baggage,” Huffman said.
The burgeoning conflict fits into the context of a long-running split between moderate and progressive Democrats that has caused a series of headaches for Democrat leadership, particularly in the House, during the 117th Congress.
Troubles could also arise from Senate Republicans.
There have been some indications from Republicans that despite their longtime support of cutting fossil fuel regulations the party will not support a stop-gap spending bill if any extraneous legislation is tied to the package—including the legislation requested by Manchin. Republicans have suggested that this is the price that Democrats must pay for their series of partisan packages that were passed during the 117th Congress without any GOP support or input.
In one comment, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that any such bill would be “part of a political payback scheme,” and vowed not to support the move.
