It's a marathon, not a sprint

House passes landmark climate and clean-energy bill 10

House Democrats late Friday eked out a win on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, getting just one more vote than was necessary to pass the sweeping bill. The victory marks the first major action by the U.S. Congress to address climate change, but the narrowness of the vote suggests the fragile nature of the effort to restructure the country’s energy portfolio.

“Today the House has passed the most important energy and environment bill in our nation’s history,” said Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who co-authored the bill with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

The bill was approved by a vote of 219 to 212, just one vote more than the simple majority of 218 needed to pass legislation in the House. Forty-four Democrats voted against it, the vast majority representing Midwestern, Southern, coal-producing, and industrial states. (See complete list of Democrats voting “no” here.)

A number of politically vulnerable first- and second-term Democrats voted against the bill. And some Democrats from farm states joined the opposition, even after the Agriculture Committee managed to secure major concessions blocking the EPA from overseeing the carbon offset program for farmers.

And the narrow win came after much coercion from Democratic leaders in the House and White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with a number of lawmakers who were on the fence this week, and a team of seven whips were deployed to meet with fence-sitters to allay their concerns.

Top administration officials and the president himself were also lighting up Capitol phone lines to lobby for votes. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) said he received calls from both Obama and climate czar Carol Browner asking him to support the bill, which he ultimately did. Freshman Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) also said she shifted to a “yes” vote after a chat with Obama.

At least one other Democrat who looked like a “no” vote this morning, Lloyd Doggett of Texas, declared late in the day that he would support the bill. Pushing aside concerns that Waxman-Markey is too weak, Doggett said he decided to vote for it after listening to Republican lawmakers repeatedly deny that there is a climate crisis.

“I believe there is still some hope to make improvements to this bill once it gets out of the House,” said Doggett. “Better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed to this legislation.”

Just eight Republicans voted in favor of the measure: Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Chris Smith (N.J), Leonard Lance (N.J), and Mark Kirk (Ill.). Without those GOP votes, the measure would have failed.

Now, to the Senate!

Climate CitizensTrack the debate and take action >>>

President Obama immediately praised the passage of the bill on Friday night, and called on the Senate to follow suit.

“Today the House of Representatives took historic action with the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act,” said Obama. “It’s a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.”

“Now it’s up to the Senate to take the next step,” he continued.

As Grist reported earlier this week, environmental groups are already working to secure improvements in the Senate.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement congratulating House leaders for the landmark passage. Boxer has pledged to have her own climate bill, likely based on Waxman-Markey, passed out of committee in August.

“There are very few bills that we pass that trigger so many benefits for the American people—energy efficiency, new jobs, cleaner air, healthier families, and energy independence,” said Boxer. “This bill gives us the momentum we need in the Senate, and signals that when we promised change for the better in America, we meant it.”

Senate Democrats’ last attempt to pass a climate bill failed by a large margin in June 2008, and senators have already rejected an attempt to exempt the climate bill from being filibustered.  It takes 60 votes to end debate on legislation in the Senate; Democrats hold 59 seats in the Senate (60 if you count Al Franken, of course). But a number of Midwestern and Southern Democrats have expressed concerns about passing the legislation, and few observers expect more than two or three GOP lawmakers to vote for a climate bill.

Meanwhile, the energy bill approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week was significantly weaker than provisions in Waxman-Markey. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he wants every committee in the Senate to complete work on climate and energy legislation by mid-September, so there is still a good deal of time left to shape legislation before the Senate adjourns for the year in November or December.

Praise for passage rolling in

Today’s victory in the House kicked off celebrations in the environmental community.

“The House of Representatives has made a dramatic breakthrough for America’s future by choosing to create jobs, move to clean energy, and reduce global warming pollution,” said a statement from Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “While passing the bill through the House took hard work and compromises on many sides, this is strong and vital legislation that Congress needs to deliver to the President’s desk this year.”

“Today’s vote creates momentum for our country to reduce global warming pollution and advance clean energy solutions,” said Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.  “We appreciate the Midwest and Great Plains legislators who stood up for the future and voted in favor of this vital legislation.”

“This bill sets the stage for the dawn of the clean energy future. While imperfect, it sets forth a set of goals America must achieve—and exceed,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

“We urged the House to pass this bill so that we could work to strengthen it before it reaches President Obama’s desk,” said Pope, emphasizing that the group wants to see the provisions dealing with old coal plants, energy efficiency, and portion of credits polluters will have to buy adjusted.

Greenpeace, however, stuck to its guns on opposing the bill as too weak. The group issued a statement from deputy campaigns director Carroll Muffett calling the “passage of the inadequate ACES bill ... a victory for coal industry lobbyists, oil industry lobbyists, agriculture industry lobbyists, steel and cement industry lobbyists, among many others.”

“[I]t is a tremendous loss for the American people or for the world in our common fight to avert climate catastrophe,” said Muffett.

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. davescott Posted 7:24 pm
    26 Jun 2009

    You write that "Senate Democrats’ last attempt to pass a climate bill failed by a large margin in June 2008..."I agree that final Senate passage will be a challenge.  I'm not sure I'd make too much of last year's Senate vote though.  Anyone who thought that last year was a real vote -- with a much smaller environmental voting bloc in the Senate and Bush ready to veto anything that survived --was not dealing with reality.  For some Senate Dems in particular, there was little incentive to vote for a McCain-Lieberman bill that wasnt going to be law in any event.  This year's vote will happen in a very different context.  And it will be a real vote.
  2. ed abbey Posted 4:12 am
    27 Jun 2009

    "Sweeping bill"!  O right, it swept REAL action on the climate crisis out the door and swept more corporate greenwashing into the livingroom.  Big Green and spineless Dems are sleep-walking in a world of half-measures.Meanwhile, out in the real world, key players like James Hansen and actual activists are going to jail in order to sound the alarm that Washington half-measures only serve to lull us to sleep and fatten the corporate coffers (and Capitol Hill campaign finances, etc.). Sour grapes? Not really.  Just thought I'd mention: your hair is on fire.
  3. bailsout Posted 9:30 am
    27 Jun 2009

    Oops! You listed Carolyn McCarthy twice, once on the aye list and once on the nay list, but with different state and party affliliations. Knowing my rep and his typically republican biases it is he that should be in the nay column, Kevin McCarthy.
    1. Russ Walker's avatar

      Russ Walker Posted 12:37 pm
      27 Jun 2009

      Good catch.  will fix
  4. nhammond Posted 12:56 pm
    28 Jun 2009

    Although I realize that Waxman-Markley has many enviros saying "Eek!" the correct expression is "eked out."
    1. Russ Walker's avatar

      Russ Walker Posted 7:18 pm
      28 Jun 2009

      Bad editing at the end of a long day of climate bill action. Thanks for the catch. It's been updated.
  5. Tyler Durden Posted 9:06 pm
    28 Jun 2009

    I think this bill will cause more harm than good.  For example, one of its evil provisions is that the Clean Air Act will no longer apply to CO2 except for mobile sources.  So, the EPA will lose its ability to regulate CO2 emissions from coal plants.  The Center for Biological Diversity has an excellent analysis of the bill, which everyone should read before going gaga over it.  This bill can still be amended to remove the bad aspects and add good ones, but the prospects of doing that in the Senate, which is almost always more conservative than the House, are pretty slim.
    1. randino Posted 4:44 am
      29 Jun 2009

      I don't think anyone has stars in their eyes or is going gaga over this bill.  After all it is not our bill, it is Congress's bill - god help us.  But this is what is hard about being active on an issue.  You mull it over, read all the pros and cons, and then take a leap and hope like hell it is for the best.  I just don't want us to get into a bloodbath over this.  At the end of the day, both the pros and the cons will have a hell of a lot more in common with each other, than they ever will with the deniers and planet killers.  Let's remember that.  From my past life in the sectarian left, I saw way too much of that and do not want to see it over this.  Let's keep a cool head, and even though you think the other side has drunk the Kool Aid on this issue, realize that they are your brothers and sisters in struggle all the same. Don't worry. I am not going to urge us to join hands and sing Kumbaya.   Randy Cunningham  
      1. Tyler Durden Posted 9:09 pm
        29 Jun 2009

        There's a big difference between a weak bill and one that will do more harm than good.  I cannot support a bill that subsidizes coal plants or weakens the Clean Air Act.I think you have a major misconception here: corporate Democrats are not our allies.  We might be able to join forces with them on some issues, but we are basically fundamentally opposed to each other's ideals.  I do not at all consider Obama or his corporate scum to be my brothers and sisters.  They are the enemy, albeit less of one than the Bush/Cheney things, er, I mean people.
  6. oracle2world Posted 6:28 am
    29 Jun 2009

    I think this legislation has so many caveats and loopholes that it will be business as usual.  Taxes will go up, CO2 will continue to rise, temperature over the next ten years anyone's guess, and the poor take it in the shorts.I love democracy!

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement