'We're Getting There,' House Majority Whip Says as Climate Bill Vote Nears

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26...ys-as-5410.html

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN

House Democratic leaders are working furiously to round up the votes on a major global warming and energy bill ahead of a roll call on final passage where the fate is still uncertain.

"We're getting there, but we're not there yet," said Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the majority whip, later telling reporters the majority has the 218 necessary votes, but "maybe 217."

This morning, the House adopted the rule for debate on the climate bill, 217-205.

"I think we're going to be OK," added Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Asked if he was nervous about the proposal, Hoyer replied, "I'm always concerned."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would not comment directly when reporters pressed for a whip count. "We'll find out when we take the vote," she said on one of her many trips to the floor, where she went member-by-member trying to sway reluctant Democrats. During one of the morning roll calls, Pelosi spent several minutes with Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), who won his last election with 65 percent of the vote.

Democrats hold 256 seats in the House but cannot count on all of their members as they try to pass the legislation with only minimal GOP support. To help buy themselves more time, Pelosi today abruptly shifted the House back onto the fiscal 2010 appropriations bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA so as to continue working members on the floor.

"Convenient, isn't it?" said one top leadership aide.

Hoping to force the final climate vote sooner than the Democrats want, Republicans withdrew several requests for recorded votes on amendments to the spending bill. Democrats objected, drawing hoots from Republicans as they acknowledged the majority's predicament.

The House is expected to return to debate on the climate bill around 1 p.m. today with three hours of debate on the Democratic proposal, as well as a half hour dedicated to a Republican alternative (pdf). Aides say they are planning on a final passage vote after 4 p.m.

With such a close vote ahead, Democrats clung on to every member they could. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), confirmed last night by the Senate for a top job in the State Department, said she would wait until the end of the day to resign her seat in order to vote for the climate bill.

Or consider the plight of Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), a longtime supporter of cap-and-trade legislation, who spoke up on the floor this morning to declare his opposition because the measure was not strong enough. Supporters of the legislation clearly did not want to take "no" for an answer, as Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Pelosi aides continued pressing him during a conversation on the House floor.

A similar situation played out in a far corner of the Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor as Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) explained the legislation to Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio), who earlier this week told E&E he would vote against the legislation.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) broke the news to Brian Wolff, a former Pelosi aide now lobbying for the Edison Electric Institute, while giving him a hug in the hallway outside the House floor. Herseth Sandlin explained that she still was not pleased with compromises reached on biofuels and free allowances for rural electric cooperatives. "What was sufficient to satisfy some was not for me," she said.

Freshman Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) said he would hold onto his vote until the very end. "I'm learning as fast as I can," he said.

As for the Republicans, several minority members blasted the Democrats for forcing the floor debate today without giving lawmakers enough time to review the legislation.

"They stuffed us!" said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "They ought to be running a Sports Authority store selling socks cause they are stuffing socks in our mouths."

"This bill needs to be pulled today," added Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas). Barton, a longtime skeptic on the science behind man-made global warming, said lawmakers should come back next month or after the summer recess to take up the proposal.

Obama officials continued their campaign to win votes, with behind-the-scenes phone calls from the president and other top administration officials. The White House Office of Management and Budget issued an unusually short four-paragraph Statement of Administration Policy (pdf) declaring that Obama "strongly supports" the bill, but it stayed clear of details on the 1,201-page measure.

This morning also saw several more lawmakers firm up their position. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a leader of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, gave a thumbs up when asked how he would vote. Republican Reps. Tom Rooney of Florida and Judy Biggert of Illinois both said they will oppose the legislation.

Click here (pdf) to read the Statement of Administration Policy.

Reporters Eric Bontrager, Katherine Ling, Allison Winter, Josh Voorhees, Noelle Straub and Christa Marshall contributed.

[OldNewby 27]

Games, nothing but games. They don't give a hoot about truth or ethics.

"We're in control. Power to us."

[Auburn85 432]

does anyone know if the people have been given 5 days to read this legislation? they tend to amend these things all the time.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Rising energy prices brought on by this bill will hit many Americans right in the mouth. What a bunch of elitist politicians. No wonder we are where we are right now.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr2454.pdf

it's only about 1100 pages in pdf

[Auburn85 432]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_...us_climate_bill

House passes major energy-climate bill

By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO

WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed sweeping legislation calling for the nation's first-ever limits on pollution linked to global warming.

The bill also aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, saying it would cost jobs in the midst of a recession.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — With President Barack Obama lobbying by phone, the Democratic-controlled House churned toward a showdown vote Friday night on historic legislation to reduce pollution linked to global warming and power the nation with cleaner but more expensive energy.

Democrats struggled to solidify a fragile coalition needed for passage and appeared headed for success. "We don't have the votes to stop this bill," conceded Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., as the roll call neared on a measure that Republicans said would kill jobs across the country while pushing consumer energy costs higher.

Republicans sought to delay the inevitable. Moments before a final vote was scheduled, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio plunged into an hour-long speech, methodically raising questions or ridiculing numerous changes that he said Democrats had made public after 3 a.m. Friday.

He called the bill "the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in 100 years," but one that would create "a bureaucratic nightmare" without solving the nation's energy problems.

Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year, but Republicans and industry groups said the real figure would much higher.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers left on their July 4 vacation. She took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.

At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

An administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade — money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut — was largely jettisoned due to opposition from energy companies and their allies in the House. The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected there. The bill's supporters would need 60 votes to overcome any Republican filibuster.

In a long day of debate Friday, Democrats narrowly won a test vote, 217-205 that cleared the bill over its first hurdle. Thirty Democrats defected on that vote, reflecting the divisiveness of the issue.

Even as the debate proceeded on the House floor, Obama made phone calls from the White House, seeking support from recalcitrant Democrats. Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year, maintaining it will "open the door to a clean energy economy," spur the growth of "green" jobs and make the United States a world leader on climate change.

The legislation would impose first-ever limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the bill marked a fundamental change in U.S. climate and energy policy and characterized it as "the "most important environmental and energy legislation to ever have been considered" by Congress.

"This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

And Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said it "promises to destroy our standard of living and quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices and lost jobs." He called it the "single largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades."

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said there was a "moral imperative to be good stewards of the earth" and move the United States to the forefront in addressing the climate problem.

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by the end of the century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by the dawn of the next century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent cent would be auctioned by bid, and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.

There was widespread agreement that under this cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy would almost certainly increase. But Democrats argued that much of the impact on taxpayers would be offset by the tax credits and rebates in the measure.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.

8 republicans voted for the measure

43 democrats voted against the measure

[Justin5 20]

I can't possibly explain what this week was like.

Certainly unforgettable.

[AURaptor 1,121]

I fear we're inevitably sinking back into a dark time we've not seen since the 1970's.

[rexbo 104]

I fear we're inevitably sinking back into a dark time we've not seen since the 1970's.

I think it will be worse, much much worse.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Fortunately my representative, Bobby Bright, voted against it. Nice to know some Democrats have some common sense. Like Americans need higher bills right now. Only under the rosiest of projections will consumers only see about a $15 a month increase after tax credits and such. What will they say it ends up being closer to the $64 a month figure or even higher? "Whoops?"

[rexbo 104]

I can't possibly explain what this week was like.

Certainly unforgettable.

Maybe it felt to you the way the Bolsheviks felt in October 1917?

[AURaptor 1,121]

I fear we're inevitably sinking back into a dark time we've not seen since the 1970's.

I think it will be worse, much much worse.

I've heard some doom and gloomers ( like glenn beck ) say likewise. I'm hoping ( if that's even the right word ) that that's little more than hyperbole, because even JUST going back to a 70's era economy would be its own disaster. Things wouldn't necessarily have to be 'worse' than they were to be really, really bad.

[OldNewby 27]

How will this affect Alabama Power, Georgia Power, and Florida Power & Light stocks?

[Tigermike 3,008]

The vote was 219 to 212. link

4 votes on the other side and it goes down to defeat.

So, who are these people:

Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle, Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), John McHugh (NY), Dave Reichert (Washington), Chris Smith (NJ)

They’re the Republicans who voted for the bill and assured its passage.

You may want to find some way to thank them for passing one of the largest and most regressive tax increases in US history.

With their passing of this bill the dimocrats have demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that they and their religion should be feared much more than any fundamentalist Christian sect out there. The dims have proven that theirs is the religion environmental activism and they will push it down the throats and force it on all mankind. They vilified and spouted their fear mongering BS about Huckabee only because he was formally an ordained minister and he didn’t back away from his beliefs. The demoncrats have vilified and marginalized the Republicans in the name of the dims religion – radical environmentalism.

[BamaGrad03 146]

Interestingly enough, news that this bill was even being voted on was nowhere to be found in the news. I scoured CNN.com yesterday trying to find out info and there was none.

If the media and congress want to hid this bill sooooo bad from the American people to get it passed, shouldn't that tell us something?

[OldNewby 27]

Interestingly enough, news that this bill was even being voted on was nowhere to be found in the news. I scoured CNN.com yesterday trying to find out info and there was none.

If the media and congress want to hid this bill sooooo bad from the American people to get it passed, shouldn't that tell us something?

Soooo good a point! Most ethical Congress eeeeever. NOT.

My neighbor said this morning, "Well they still haven't passed that bill." I told him that yes they had.

If not for the internet, I would have said "what bill?" Kudos to AG!

[Justin5 20]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

[rexbo 104]

I fear we're inevitably sinking back into a dark time we've not seen since the 1970's.

I think it will be worse, much much worse.

I've heard some doom and gloomers ( like glenn beck ) say likewise. I'm hoping ( if that's even the right word ) that that's little more than hyperbole, because even JUST going back to a 70's era economy would be its own disaster. Things wouldn't necessarily have to be 'worse' than they were to be really, really bad.

I'm not normally a doom and gloomer, but the things this Democrat-dominated Gov't is doing is blowing my mind; pushing as hard as they can on policies that have FAILED everywhere else they have been tried. I do have one bright thing to cheer me up though, this huge tax increase vote just sealed the Democrat's fate in 2010, they are going to go down hard.

[OldNewby 27]

I can't possibly explain what this week was like.

Certainly unforgettable unforgivable.

ftfy

[BamaGrad03 146]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

On the CNN POLITICS page yesterday, there wasn't a single story about it on the homepage. There's a 10 pack of "top stories" links. None of which contained anything about it.

And for the last 3 weeks, the administration has been talking about health care to distract us from this bill. If the people don't know it's coming, then they can't call and urge their representatives against voting for it.

Make no mistake, this is a bill they don't want the American people to know about.

[Justin5 20]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

On the CNN POLITICS page yesterday, there wasn't a single story about it on the homepage. There's a 10 pack of "top stories" links. None of which contained anything about it.

And for the last 3 weeks, the administration has been talking about health care to distract us from this bill. If the people don't know it's coming, then they can't call and urge their representatives against voting for it.

Make no mistake, this is a bill they don't want the American people to know about.

The American people made their decision on action regarding climate change in the 2008 elections. It was a part of Obama's and the Democratic party platform. The Democratic party was elected into power on that platform, and not following through on it would have been derelict. If you don't like it - tough, and I suggest doing your all to ensure your views are properly represented in the 2010 elections.

In addition, health care was a part of that platform so get ready for that as well.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

That's not the way you guys talked when Bush was elected to two terms. Just because they prefer one candidate over another doesn't mean they sign on for every hairbrained idea they come up with.

[Auburn85 432]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

what would have happened if a big name star would have died the day before or on election day?

honestly, i watched the few minutes just prior to the vote on cspan. and i was checking on all the cable news networks at the time. it was all michael jackson. on hardball with chris matthews, on the situation room with wolf blitzer, neil cavuto on fox, glenn beck did talk a little bit about the global warming bill.

and when it did pass in the house, all of 2 minutes for breaking news purposes talked about it passing in the house. then, right back to michael jackson.

sure it was on every news site moments after it passed. coverage was limited just prior to teh passage. fortunately, i found the new york times piece which i posted and few others which happned to dedicate some space to.

again, were folks given 72 hours to look over the bill after all of the amendments before it passed in the house? we didn't get that luxery for the $787 billion bill.

[Tigermike 3,008]

Interestingly enough, news that this bill was even being voted on was nowhere to be found in the news. I scoured CNN.com yesterday trying to find out info and there was none.

If the media and congress want to hid this bill sooooo bad from the American people to get it passed, shouldn't that tell us something?

Yes it does tell us something. The fact that they did it late on Friday afternoon provides even more clarity or their actions.

[Justin5 20]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

what would have happened if a big name star would have died the day before or on election day?

honestly, i watched the few minutes just prior to the vote on cspan. and i was checking on all the cable news networks at the time. it was all michael jackson. on hardball with chris matthews, on the situation room with wolf blitzer, neil cavuto on fox, glenn beck did talk a little bit about the global warming bill.

and when it did pass in the house, all of 2 minutes for breaking news purposes talked about it passing in the house. then, right back to michael jackson.

sure it was on every news site moments after it passed. coverage was limited just prior to teh passage. fortunately, i found the new york times piece which i posted and few others which happned to dedicate some space to.

again, were folks given 72 hours to look over the bill after all of the amendments before it passed in the house? we didn't get that luxery for the $787 billion bill.

If the bill was passed out of Congress I would understand your point, but this thing still has a ways to go until its law. On the day it becomes law - I would be absolutely SHOCKED if it wasn't the top story for multiple days.