Washington Examiner | John Sicilliano 

The Senate could hold votes as soon as this week on resolutions opposing President Obama’s climate rules for power plants, ahead of an international meeting on global warming in Paris at the end of the month that he is set to attend.

A vote on resolutions of disapproval would send a clear message to other countries that the president does not have the support of Congress to agree to new global emission cuts, say congressional staff.

The Paris talks will bring together all nations to hash out a deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to stop the Earth’s temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius. The climate rules are the linchpin in the United States’ commitments to the global deal. Many scientists say the manmade emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are causing the climate to warm, resulting in more droughts and floods.

Two resolutions could be brought to the floor for votes the week of Nov. 16 before Obama travels to Paris for the climate meeting that starts Nov. 30, aides say.

The two resolutions fall under the Congressional Review Act as “resolutions of disapproval,” which can be passed by a simple majority to nullify the climate rules for power plants. The first one, introduced by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., would seek to repeal the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants. The rule requires states to reduce emissions a third by 2030 and is being challenged in court by 27 states and a multitude of interest groups.

The resolutions would be vetoed by President Obama if passed, and it is not clear if senators can secure the votes to make them veto-proof. Environmentalists and other groups started campaigns last week supporting the climate rules, urging lawmakers to vote against the resolutions.

The second resolution would repeal the New Source greenhouse gas rule that critics say bans the construction of new coal plants by setting cost-prohibitive technology requirements. The New Source resolution of disapproval was introduced last month by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two states whose economies depend heavily on coal.

The two resolutions are being “ginned up” for floor action, says a Senate environment committee aide. The resolutions can be “discharged” to the floor without having to be voted on by the committee through the normal mark-up process, says the aide. Instead of a markup, 30 senators can sign a petition to bypass the normal procedural process and move the resolutions directly to the floor for a vote.

The earliest the resolutions could be voted on is the week of Nov. 16, or immediately after Thanksgiving. Holding votes on the resolutions will be “a way to talk about the negative consequences” of the rules on both the domestic side and ahead of the international talks, the aide said.

A third resolution is being contemplated that does not fall under the Congressional Review Act, but sends a strong signal to world leaders in Paris that the Senate has the final word on any deal the president may agree to, say GOP aides.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is drafting a resolution that demonstrates that the Senate must ratify any agreement that Obama signs onto in Paris. The administration wants to go around Congress for the commitments of any U.N. agreement.

Republicans say Obama believes the agreement will not be completely legally binding, and therefore frees him from having to rely on Congress to ratify a climate change deal. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed last week that he does not believe the deal will be legally binding.

“Pursuing a deal in Paris as an executive agreement, instead of as a treaty would not only violate the plain meaning of the United Nations convention, it would also defy the historical understanding of the constitutional limits that the president is subject to in connection with foreign affairs,” Lee said recently in previewing the Paris meeting at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Those constitutional limits are in place to “safeguard the sovereignty of the American people, and their right to see to it that their government remains their government. And is a government of, by and for the people,” Lee said.

“If they try to do an agreement that doesn’t involve the Senate, [any deal is] going to be very limited,” says the committee aide. If “they were serious about this they would [have tried] to engage the Senate for a long time,” but they haven’t, the aide adds.