Monday, 20 April 2009

Congress Inclined to Act First on Health

By GREG HITT

WASHINGTON -- Shortly after Congress returns from recess Monday, lawmakers will have to choose which Obama promise to make a higher priority -- overhauling the health-care system or addressing climate change.
A growing number of Democratic lawmakers prefer health care, saying that has a far greater chance of producing consensus than climate change, inside the party and across party lines. And they argue that it would be a more tangible accomplishment to present to financially stressed voters heading into the 2010 midterm elections.
"Moving forward on health-care reform should be first among equals," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said in an interview. Mr. Van Hollen, a member of the House leadership team, said the House will also "make substantial progress" on climate change, including consideration of a cap-and-trade plan to control harmful emissions. But he stressed health care has the best prospect for enactment. "That is in a position to move through the entire process first," he said.
Health care "is a way of delivering major good news to voters," added Rep. Jim Cooper (D., Tenn.), a top leader in the Blue Dogs, a group of moderate Democrats.
The White House and Democratic congressional leaders say both issues remain at the top of their agenda. Mr. Obama looks "forward to working with [the] leadership on Capitol Hill in the months to come on both issues," said White House spokesman Jen Psaki.
The push to address climate change was given new urgency Friday, when the Obama administration ruled that greenhouse gases "endanger public health" and said that unless Congress acts, new regulations would be forthcoming. In response, business groups said they would push for a new law from Capitol Hill, preferring that to potentially more costly emissions rules from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Both issues are complex and politically difficult, and Capitol Hill has rarely completed landmark legislation on two fronts in one year. With four months gone in 2009 and the 2010 election looming, the window for substantive legislative action will narrow sharply.
Beyond those measures, Democrats have a long to-do list. They still have to conclude action on the fiscal 2010 budget. They face fights over the next round of funding for the U.S.-led wars abroad as well as congressional demands to set benchmarks for progress in Afghanistan. Complex legislation is also moving that would overhaul regulation of financial markets.
Mr. Cooper said health care is ripe for action in part because Congress has already had extensive debates on the issue, going back to the failed Clinton effort in 1994. "You don't have to start from scratch," he said, suggesting that climate change is relatively new to voters and would have a big impact on the economy -- and consumers -- while not producing an immediate benefit for voters. "Climate change doesn't have a lot of great news in it," he said.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) is vowing to have a climate-change bill ready for floor action by Memorial Day. He has unveiled a draft that would control greenhouse gases by capping harmful emissions and creating a trading system that helps corporations comply with the limits. His panel will convene several hearings on the issue this week, and a key subcommittee will take up the bill in the last week of the month.
Republicans are attacking the initiative as a tax on consumers, who would face greater energy costs. More problematic, Democrats are divided, especially in the Senate, with manufacturing and coal-state lawmakers resisting aggressive action.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said climate change and health care remain "high priorities." But he looks at the political landscape and sees stronger interest in health care. "If you had to rank them, health care is probably a little bit higher," he said.
While health care may have a smoother path than climate change, even that won't be easy, with many details remaining to be worked out. Among them: how to pay for expanded coverage, which is estimated to cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years.
Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com