House Democrats Win Procedural Vote on Climate Bill
DINA CAPPIELLO
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives narrowly won a crucial test vote Friday and pushed for passage of sweeping legislation designed to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included the largest tax increase in American history.
President Barack Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year in office, and aides lobbied for passage as debate unfolded on the House floor. At a White House meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama said some European nations have moved faster than the United States to combat global warming, adding that he would like to see the United States play a great leadership role.
During a news conference with Obama, Merkel said she would not have expected such a step in the United States a year ago, when George W. Bush was president, but said she was pleased that it appeared possible now.
The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation toward a final roll call later Friday. Thirty Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked.
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. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on how much more consumers would pay.
Democratic Rep. Ed Markey said the bill was the "most important environmental and energy legislation to ever have been considered in this nation's history." He said it would create large numbers of new jobs.
Other supporters said if Congress did not act to curb global warming, the Environmental Protection Agency would. "Something to shudder about," said Democratic Rep. John Dingell.
Republican Rep. Frank Lucas said the legislation "promises to destroy our standard of living and quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices and lost jobs. This bill is the single, largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades," he added.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 Independence Day holiday vacation.
The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.
In the House, the bill's fate depended on the decisions of a few dozen fence-sitting Democrats. Some are veterans from coal-producing states, but most are conservatives and moderates from contested districts who feared the political ramifications of siding with the White House and their leadership on the measure.
A last-minute list of provisions accepted by Democratic leaders included several aimed at securing votes. Among them was a promise of additional money for farmers to reduce greenhouse gases on private agricultural land.
Democrats left little or nothing to chance. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to an administration post, put off her resignation from Congress until after the final vote on the climate change bill.
"The bill contains provisions to protect consumers, keep costs low, help sensitive industries transition to a clean energy economy and promote domestic emission reduction efforts," the White House in a statement of support for the legislation.
Republicans saw it differently.
This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," said Republican Rep. Mike Pence.
While the bill would impose a "cap-and-trade" system that would force higher energy costs, Republicans have branded it for weeks as an energy tax on every American.
The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the United States to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and about 80 percent by 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 caps.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
House Democrats Believe Al Gore and Barrack Obama
House Democrats must have great scientific backgrounds to go along with the Al Gore and Barrack Obama phantasy about global warming. All these ding-a-lings will bankrupt our country, if someone like the Supreme Court doesn't step in and tell them what fiscal responsibility means. We won't have a Constitution if our country goes down the chute. The Supreme Court should step in and protect our Constitution by preventing the ding-a-lings in our government from destroying our Constitutional way of life.
At the rate things are going, I don't think the United States can survive as an entity with Obama as the leader. Obama makes Richard Nixon look good and that's going some.
Job Security?
Besides obviously Al Gore and Nancy Pellosi, I wonder how many other people in Washington stand to profit by "Cap & Trade". Personally I think the current climate is in no real danger. However due to Overpopulation there is a real possibility that we could very well run out of most natural resources, (But that's a few generations down the road) and Cap & Trade will do absolutely nothing to preserve natural resources. It may create a new source or alternative but unless if we do something to curb the population on this planet we will continually run into the same problem of depleting our inventory over and over again. With that being said how can any Intelligent person with a shred of integrity vote for this. When the only things known for sure about this bill is more people will lose jobs, (Obama or Nancy telling me that they know for sure more jobs will be created than destroyed is a lot like our unemployment numbers would not go above 8.5% unless the stimulus was passed) and the other thing is a least right now our power bill will go up (Residentially and commercially) which in turn will drive the cost of nearly everything we buy in this country up (It might be less in the long run when you factor in tax credits and what not, but this country does not need any more reasons right now to prevent the economy from recovering. I mean their sole occupation is to dictate the will of and protect the people of a geographical community. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that our government does not care about us one bit, for all their sanctimoneous rhetoric about the big bad greedy corperations, they are actually worse than they are at big business doesn't try to disguise that they are there to make a profit.
Where is the proof?
The annual proof is in all the world except North America's northern areas. The fact is that it exists globally. Validated here in the U.S. by SW and southern state temps as part of the globe. The cause, be it a climate cycle, man-made, or a combination of these is of no value.
The actual issues they aren't talking about that much, rather, they're addressing issues to the tree-huggers and so forth in guise. Some examples of the actual issues are future anticipated energy usage based on current estimations, population growth and its corresponding energy requirements. oil dependency and its sources, reduced global availability of oil in the future and substantial price hikes, financing alternate "clean" energy sources to offset these, long-term drop in prices of equipment making alternate energy sources. Except for coal and nuke plants, I don't see any alternatives at this time. The politicians primarily lean left nowadays, and have to contend with "green" constituents. So, as a result, things go through Congress as you see them regarding energy and climate. Its an expensive way to deal with the problems they are acutally dealing with. I don't really like it, but that's the way it is, for now.
advertisement




