Posted by BertsPost on June 27, 2009 |
Share | (0)
Comments
Again the house is voting on a bill they have not read!!! What is going on in Washington?
The House churned toward a showdown vote Friday 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 to pass the bill—firmly opposed by Republicans who called the measure a “job killer” that would push families’ energy bills higher and drive businesses overseas.
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.
It will “make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology,” declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who had negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill’s support.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.
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 a certain Republican filibuster.
Democrats narrowly won a key test vote, 217-205 to advance the bill to the House floor Friday. Thirty Democrats defected their party leaders on that vote, reflecting the divisiveness of the issue and prompting a frantic effort to sway remaining fence-sitting Democratic lawmakers.
Even as the debate proceeded on the House floor, President Barack Obama made phone calls to undecided Democratic lawmakers to urge them to support the bill. 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.
Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers.
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.
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. However, it also would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeded the cap or made greater pollution cuts than were required.
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 other provisions in the bill. Low-income consumers would qualify for credits and rebates to cushion the impact on their energy bills.
Two reports issued this week—one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency—seemed to support that argument.
The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year; the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.
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.
