Historic Energy Legislation Survives Narrow House Vote

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an historic energy bill Friday night during a nail-biting vote. The outcome appeared tenuous almost until the last vote was counted. When the count reached 218, lawmakers began to cheer, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 narrowly passed with a vote of 219 to 212.

The sweeping legislation, co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), seeks to cut greenhouse gases by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and nearly 80% by 2050. It is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s legislative agenda and Friday night’s victory will help strengthen his position when he travels to Copenhagen in December to participate in international negotiations on a new global climate change treaty.

His weekly address, which was originally expected to focus on healthcare reform, was changed after the climate bill passed and used to praise House Democrats.  “Today, the House of Representatives took historic action with the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act,” Obama says.  “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; and strictly limiting the release of pollutants that threaten the health of families and communities and the planet itself.”

For the first time, limits would be placed on carbon dioxide and other pollutants from power plants, factories, refineries and other industrial operations. It would also force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to more efficient forms of renewable energy.

One of the most fiercely contested elements of the bill is a cap-and-trade system in which the federal government would mandate that companies must have allowances for every ton of greenhouse gas they emit. The companies can buy or sell those allowances but they will be reduced gradually over time. Republicans have frequently charged that the provision is tantamount to taxing the air Americans breathe and places the U.S. industry at a competitive disadvantage with China and other countries that do not impose such controls. Some lawmakers, including several Democrats, contend that it also places a disproportionate burden on coal-dependent regions or areas that do not produce enough solar or wind energy.

Unlike with the majority of legislation that passes through the House, most of these votes were based on regional, rather than ideological, differences. “This was a tough vote,” says a jubilant Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip. Some members who had tough campaigns during the last election cycle, Clyburn explains, couldn’t afford to vote for legislation that was opposed by their constituencies back home. Others felt they had to vote their districts’ interests over what may be best for the nation. In the end, eight Republicans voted for the bill, while 44 Democrats voting nay.

For example, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a candidate for the state’s 2010 gubernatorial race, voted against the legislation. He says: “It’s a bad bill for my state and your obligation is to vote first and foremost in the interest of your state.”

When asked what helped Democrats win the close vote, Clyburn says, “respecting each member’s sensitivities and working with them on those sensitivities–even those who in the final analysis couldn’t see their way to vote for this. I think that if there’s a key [to success] here, that’s it.”

The vote followed a day filled with impassioned debate, compromise and probably even a little arm-twisting as Democratic leaders scrambled to whip up the 218 votes needed for the bill’s passage. On Thursday and Friday, uncommitted lawmakers heard from administration officials, including the president, who hosted a luau at the White House on the eve before the vote.

At mid-day, Clyburn told reporters that it would be tough but the legislation would pass. It had cleared a morning procedural, or test, vote by 217 to 205, with several defecting Democrats. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), whom the Senate confirmed on Thursday as undersecretary of State for arms control, maintained she would not resign the House until after the final vote.  Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) left a rehab program to cast his vote while Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights icon who has been recovering from heart surgery, also returned to Washington for the vote.

Lawmakers supporting the bill argued that the legislation will curb greenhouse gases that are believed to contribute to global warming and reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Moreover, they maintain it would create hundreds of thousands of new green energy jobs.

But Republicans, during three hours of debate on Friday afternoon, strongly disagreed, calling the bill a “job killer” and a “national energy tax” that would impose costs on both families and businesses, driving thousands of jobs overseas. Minority leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the act “the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in 100 years,” before launching an hour-long speech on how it would create a bureaucratic nightmare if passed.

Congressional Black Caucus members Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D- Miss.), chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, initially opposed the legislation because of its impact on their respective home states. Democratic leaders were able to win support with concessions designed to ease specific burdens on local industrial concerns, low-income households and small businesses such as tax credits.

“I got some agreements that reflect the concerns of the South, and Georgia in particular. One was that we expanded the definition of renewables to include biomass, which we have there,” Scott says. He also fought for a change to the Energy Star label, which would have required all home sales to include a certificate on how much appliances and energy systems conform to green standards. By making the modification, the law would affect only new homes. “My district, which is suburban and rural, has older homes so I wanted to get the Energy Star labeling in there that would give some help in consideration of the pricing of these older homes when they are made energy efficient.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents the petroleum-rich state of Texas, also sat on the fence until certain concessions were made. She fought for the Energy Star provision as well as the inclusion of a grant program for female- and minority-owned businesses to stimulate business plan competitions and green energy start-ups.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce has opposed the bill, warning that cap and trade would hurt American consumers by making products more expensive. A study released by the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research found that 76% of African Americans believe climate legislation should be delayed until the economy recovers and that 38% say that job losses as a result of the bill would be felt most strongly in the black community.

Consumers can expect an eventual increase in utility bills but the impact has yet to be measured. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that the average household would be hit with the cost $175 per year which Democrats say is equivalent to the price of a postage stamp a day. Another report by the Environmental Protection Agency estimates an increase of $80 to $110 a year.

“I think when people emphasize cost and they are not able to look at the benefits, you’ll always get a distorted view,” Clyburn says. “We were able to get people to understand that there’s a tremendous benefit to this.”