House passes climate-change bill
By: Lisa Lerer and Patrick O'Connor
June 25, 2009 08:43 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html

Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.

But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama's ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.

Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.

“We passed transformational legislation which takes us into the future,” Pelosi said at a press conference following the vote, after she and other leaders took congratulatory phone calls from Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.

After months of negotiations, 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill of more than 1,200 pages, setting the legislation on a path towards the Senate. There, it faces a far more uncertain future given the opposition of key moderates and the already-heated battle over health care.

Republicans are sure to try and use against other Democrats in 2010, with accusations that they raised electricity bills for already-strapped consumers in the midst of a deep recession.

Indeed, the National Republican Congressional Committee wasted little time before blasting out a press release targeting more than two dozen Democrats for supporting “Democrats’ ongoing crusade against economic recovery.”

“I’m in a tough spot. I really am,” Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, said before the vote, citing his fears the legislation could raise energy costs and hurt the coal industry in his low-income, rural district.

“Either way I’m going to get creamed.”

Democratic leadership attempted to protect their most vulnerable freshman by cajoling yes votes from more senior members such as Lloyd Doggett of Texas.

Doggett announced his change of heart from “strong objection” earlier in the day during the final stage of the floor debate.

Doggett told POLITICO that he made his switch after speaking to Obama and having lengthy conversations with Waxman, Markey, Gore and Pelosi, but ultimately, he decided to support the bill so he could have a seat at the negotiating table when California Sen. Barbara Boxer introduces it in the Senate later this summer.

“It has been a difficult and significant decision,” Doggett said. “I just decided that I will have a better chance to make changes later in the process if I acted in good faith now. But don't think this means I'm signing off on the conference report,” he said.

When the bill passed, the chamber erupted in applause, and colleagues shook Markey and Waxman's hands. Even some Republicans clapped, mocking the Democrats for casting what they deemed a politically unpopular vote.

The vote itself proceeded with much less drama than hung in the chamber for most of the day leading up to the much anticipated roll call; Democrats looked relieved and Republicans resigned as they watched votes register on the big board above the House floor. Fence-sitting Republicans such as Washington Rep. Dave Reichert and New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance waited to vote “yes” on the bill, in a game of chicken with moderate Democrats.

Many of those moderate Democrats, like freshman Rep. Bobby Bright of Alabama, also waited until the end of the roll call to cast votes against the package.

In the end, Democrats had the votes they needed, and many veteran moderates were able to cast votes in favor of the bill without hanging junior Democrats out to dry. One possible exception – Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil, a freshman – accepted handshakes from colleagues after casting an early vote in favor of the package.

The debate leading up to the vote was nevertheless intense.

Democrats touted the legislation as a measure that would improve national security, create jobs, protect the environment and reestablish the United States as a world leader. Republicans slammed the bill as an economic catastrophe.

“I look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,” said California Republican Brian Bilbray.

“This is the biggest job killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”

Donning reading glasses, Boehner then delayed the roll call vote by reading page-by-page through a 300-page managers’ amendment Democrats added at around 3 a.m. on Friday. Boehner seemed to relish the hour-long stunt, picking out the bill’s most obscure language and then pontificating about what it might – or might not – mean. Republicans laughed along with him and roared with applause when he was done.

The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants, energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum refiners, and other industries special protections to help them transition to new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing business.

It will also raise electricity prices for consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of consumer goods.

Obama praised the House for taking a “bold and necessary step,” then wasted no time in turning up the heat on the upper chamber. “Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step. And I'm confident that in the coming weeks and months the Senate will demonstrate the same commitment to addressing what is a tremendous challenge and an extraordinary opportunity,” he said in a statement.

The White House played a significant role in drumming up support for the legislation, which is a key piece of the administration’s first-year agenda. The administration is under pressure to make significant progress towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen international climate talks next December.

A long list of Cabinet secretaries, key staffers and even Obama himself lobbied undecided members. Gore, the don of the climate-change world, spent several days calling on the fence lawmakers.

The legislation spilt both the environmental and business communities. Although environmentalists have pushed for stricter controls on greenhouse-gas emissions for more than a decade, more left-wing groups like Greenpeace wanted stronger emissions reductions and fewer protections for greenhouse-gas guzzling industries like coal. While some electric utilities, auto manufacturers, and Fortune 500 companies supported the bill, large business associations like the Chamber of Commerce argued that it would impose a crippling regulatory burden on the economy that would push factories and jobs abroad.

The House chamber took on the feeling of a momentous vote on Friday, with lobbyists, administration officials and even the stray senator –in this case, Udall – working the hallways off the floor to convince fence sitters in one direction or another. After the rule vote, Markey quickly collared Holt for a brief conversation.

“We are fond of seeing headlines that say this is the Democrats’ toughest challenge yet,” said House Whip James Clyburn, tweaking the media’s hyperbole. “Well, today that what quite true.”

He joined many other Democrats in giving the ultimate credit to Pelosi making the difference on the vote.
“Nancy Pelosi was the whip on this,” he said.

-- Victoria McGrane contributed to this story.

Assuming that the increases will average between $175.00 a year and $3,000.00 a year, doesn't sound encouraging. The Dems are determined to mold the entire economy into something very different.Cars, condos, and now electricity. What's next? Health care, of course!

well we have 2 choices for the power company, coal steam plants and hydro power, right now we got so much rain, they are using alot of hydro power and gave a couple of bucks discount, but i have not seen the details of this bill , but it still has to make it through senate, it will not get help from my state, they are both republicans and will vote against it, but what i mean is if we had dems, they might go against obama since coal is one of the big issues he has talked about,we also mine coal here but import more and more, so im saying they cant loose dems from alabama, we have no dems, lol,, but when it dry and the lake start to loose water to much they stop pulling water and use coal only. im amazed when i learned france yes france, is mostly nuclear powered. take care

//it will also raise electricity prices for consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of consumer goods.//

so my understanding of this is 175 dollar increase per year stated by Democrats is much better than a 3000 dollar increase stated by Republicans??
I don't understand a lot of it, but if the bill will create better, i am for it.

gypsy wrote://it will also raise electricity prices for consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of consumer goods.//

so my understanding of this is 175 dollar increase per year stated by Democrats is much better than a 3000 dollar increase stated by Republicans??
I don't understand a lot of it, but if the bill will create better, i am for it.

im against this, i never have been sold on the climate thing, i think gore is a dufuss.it will hurt many things, cut coal jobs, but i hope it's stoped in the senate, where if some dems will not go along it will be dead, only one has to change, and it will not be brought up for a vote, but obama is in a bind, he had the green support in the election, so he has to try to please them,, i never have been a green person.for every scientist that spews green house effect, there is one with the opposite view.

well I don't know a lot about it, but if it protects environment,ecology, and the health of the people, then I am for it~ we only have one earth~~we better continue to take care of her.

I agree we have one earth but the time is coming when we caan't afford to live here. This is going to pose hardships on many and increased jobs I doubt it. If the coal industry goes under, and that will happen think of all the fallout that will cause.

then we need to go all nuclear ,like France and other countries,we don't depend on coal that much anymore, I would think.maybe upgrade so coal does not have to be used~

Coal can be burned clean, nuclear had alot of risks, plus think of your own states economy. Can Kentucky afford to shut down the coal industry ? More unemployment, more hardships , there has to be a better way, and not just a plan thrown together in a few months .

it sounds like companies don't want to upgrade. not having coal mines,or miners would be better, just my opinion. how long have we been dependent on coal, are we that dependent now as much. there is a way, anything is better if it improves quality of the world~/life
I really don't know a lot about the bill ,but i will study on it~

SSC wrote:Coal can be burned clean, nuclear had alot of risks, plus think of your own states economy. Can Kentucky afford to shut down the coal industry ? More unemployment, more hardships , there has to be a better way, and not just a plan thrown together in a few months .

I do believe that human activity has added to a naturally occurring warming trend, but I don't have the knowledge to prove it. And that compels me to agree with you. We,you and I, don't KNOW. The "cap and trade" system works like this: Industries will be ordered to limit CO2 emissions by law. They MUST close operations or....buy carbon credits from energy suppliers who can operate below the limits they were set. Wind,solar,water power (NOT bio fuels) will have an advantage and prosper. OK, but where will the coal/oil/gas fired generators get the money to buy the credits necessary to supply power to their customers? From the customers. To say that it will only cost them (me) $15 a month or as much as $250 per month isn't helpful. Each individual needs to check this out with their local info sources because it will vary very much county by county,state by state. I plan to. We can have no room to bitch if we let this get stampeded through Congress without our knowledge and input. We discussed this at IYT years ago. This is the first confirmation that our standard of living will change. My opinions? Coal cannot be burned cleanly,but the CO2 can be captured and buried miles below the Earth's surface. Sound exotic? Wait til yer electric bill doubles. I'm all for the advancement of wind and solar power, but when Obama says this will create jobs,he's just lying. This very bright man knows that it will not increase jobs overall and is,in fact,going to reduce industrial activity as people tighten their belts to stay warm. Only a gullible fool thinks we can operate as before PLUS provide employment for an ever growing population by DECREASING industry. Obama's credo that we will become "world leaders again" by showing leadership in this arena is pure hype. World powers respond to realities,not intentions. If we are mired in double digit unemployment and near zero economic growth for decades, we will lead nothing. As Roscoe noted,the French get 70% of their power from nuclear reactors. That should be our ultimate goal, but if we are to reduce energy input,we must reduce energy consumption. Global warming or not,it is mathematically impossible to keep the population growing forever and one of the first effects of an overpopulation scenario will be the shortage of energy needed to provide basic human services. Next will be water,and then food.

I agree wholeheartedly with your post~
I also suggested nuclear power is the way to go..
I do hope your part about it not creating jobs is not true.
we are becoming a very crowded planet.running out of everything within the next years maybe we can slow this down..

I want to believe Obama would not lie,and is thinking of U S people.
I do believe we need to up grade our form of energy. and to progress to cleaner air and healthier caring for our earth, that is the native way, and it is instilled in me.

well i remember when browns ferry nuclear plant operated in i think tenn. i dont think north alabama but tenn, it had problems so it was shut down, i have a steam plant just like 15 miles from me , in the winter at some places i can see the steam from the towers, my sister lives down at another steam plant, all of these are coal fueled, when my nephew finishes up working the building of the kia plant, he will mainly weld at the steam plant, the pipe welders union sends him there mostly, but they have him at kia for now, but its going to play out, we use mostly coal, we have some hydro plants,but cant use them in the summer. the water would get to low, that is why the lake im own was built by alabama power co. i think browns ferry nuke was tva. as i have said its funny, im on the alabama power owned smith lake , but i get my power up there from a co-op that gets power from TVA. TVA even reaches down to parts of birmingham, but at home im on alabama power, this use to be a coal minning bonanza here, even close to me, mines run everywhere, deep in the ground, and at other places, but our coal has to much sulfur, there still are mines that are active, but as soon as the contract runs out the mines will shut down, a huge amount of mines have closed in my lifetime, there use to be really good paying jobs in the mines, but most the coal now is imported i think from south america, i think its low sulfur.. i guess alabama power will pass the cost of burning coal on to me. i dont see them getting off coal. they have nothing else, i dont see them building a nuke plant, if so i would not live to see it finished probably. then there is the problem with what to do with nuclear waist, i think but have not checked, is not nevada one of the dumping grounds for nuclear waist????buried deep in the ground and will remain radioactive for thousands and thousands of years, i could look it up but im not. anyway maybe the senate will kill the bill. thats why united states steel mill use to be the largest work force in and around birmingham, my grandaddy worked there all his life, because we had all u need to make steel, we had coal , lots of coal, and iron ore, but most of it played out but still has a huge pipe mill that makes steel pipe. they have in the last year put in natural gas wells in the woods just 4 miles from my house, but did it neat and left some woods so u dont see them much only the pipe gates at the roads into the wood to the natural gas wells, oh well just see what the senate does. take care

there was talk of burning clean coal, we have days of air alerts when the dome of air does not move,and have stations that check the air, but that is due to cars mostly here, they even say cut ur grass at certain times of the day, i just laugh, then a storm comes and the air alert goes away, to me its silly,.,i cant tell any difference, we have so much grinding steel dust at work from the ppl that grind the air outside is nothing to me.

I've never heard of a method of burning coal while not producing tons of CO2, if that is what is meant by "clean". A nuclear waste site has been designed and is under construction in NV. It includes several miles of lined and floored tunnels bored into Yucca Mountain (not sure of name). Enviromentalists have brought suit to have it suspended since it lies across a minor fault line. Sounds like mindless eco-mania instead of reasoned opposition. Tell ya the truth Roscoe, I don't think we should expect a viable world population capable of expanding to the point when humans will be populating this rempote area and then becoming threatened by it. By that tme,I expect a little radiation leakage will be the least of our worries.

meemoon wrote:I've never heard of a method of burning coal while not producing tons of CO2, if that is what is meant by "clean". A nuclear waste site has been designed and is under construction in NV. It includes several miles of lined and floored tunnels bored into Yucca Mountain (not sure of name). Enviromentalists have brought suit to have it suspended since it lies across a minor fault line. Sounds like mindless eco-mania instead of reasoned opposition. Tell ya the truth Roscoe, I don't think we should expect a viable world population capable of expanding to the point when humans will be populating this rempote area and then becoming threatened by it. By that tme,I expect a little radiation leakage will be the least of our worries.

i dont know what clean coal is marc, all i think i remember it was a catch phrase during the election. im sure it has a story to it but i need to take time to read up and try to understand what they mean by it. which i have not done, actually this bill snuck up on me lol,i know i have heard of scrubbers for many years i think that cleans the particles air from the stacks, , but really not sure if that has to do with coal or the making of steel or what, i remember as a child living close to US Steel the mill its huge,covers many miles . driving down the highway close to it, the air would be red if the wind was blowing in that direction, and dust from steel would settle on ur car at nite, but they were made to clean all that up, i remember new stacks, but i think some of it caused alot of the steel mill to close, rather than spend to change over.. it was totally closed for a while till they put in a ultra modern pipe mill, i think its was built in Italy.i have made spare parts all totally from stainless steel and all metric, at one machine shop i worked that had kept spare parts made for the pipe mill. and we made alot,, very close tolerance, like plus .001 and minus nothing, so we made them .0005 over tolorance.in the bore and dove tail bores and OD. and thickness, not every aspect of the part was that close , but was still close work. so plus .001 and a hair on ur head measures .003 we did that in a controlled environment, nothing like the work i do now, lol,,

I think the bottom line is to improve to get away from pollutants ,also our dependencies on oil.
someday we will run out of natural products like coal,oil,so thinking to the future is good if we are going to improve.
we do need to create more jobs,hopefully this will, upgrading our energy plan looks like would create more jobs~ it won't be instantaneous ,of course.

this meltdown wasn't instant, neither will the recovery be.

coal is one of our most abundant resources, it has been started many times we have over a 200 year supply of coal. by then technology will have advanced to a better degree, as of now there is not much way to change, i think my state will still always use coal just pay the tax. but still this may not pass, i think its a over blown problem, the senate is a different animal. and may not go along with it , some dems that are in areas that they are not strong in may vote against it as to not raise taxes,and thereby loose an election, all speculation, we shall see, probably be fall before anything develops, anyway.

We have more coal resorces in the US alone than oil in Saudi, the use of coal would stop the dependency on foreign oil, if emissions can be purified, then why continue to support the rag heads of the world.

coal cannot be burned clean,and I don't think all the scrubbers made would make it clean,we are going to have do something else.
Cap and trade I am not fully in agreement,but maybe reevaluated ,take away some of the trash, it can be made presentable and usable, coal may be plentiful but it does not create new jobs,I also hate the thoughts of men going down into mines~if all that can be accomplished,clean burning, safe mine ,then we can jump/and jive/ the important part, create jobs,emissions control, helping the economy, and then we can move forward. Coal is living in the dark ages~
we also have abundance of natural gas,to run vehicles and heating

i heat with natural gas and heat water with nat gas, ,u dont so u use coal, if kentucky electric uses coal, if i used elecricity i would be using coal, alabama power has used coal for many decades along with hydro power, i have no problem with it, i think it is way over blown, our problem with air here as we have stations that check our air daily and the weather man tells what it is, the problem here is car emissions,

we use mostly water from the lakes,seldom do we use coal~ we areTVA.