House poised to narrowly pass Waxman-Markey climate change bill

The US House of Representatives appeared poised to narrowly approve a bill to establish a domestic carbon cap-and-trade program and take other steps to address global climate change following heavy lobbying by both House Democratic leaders and the White House.

US President Barack H. Obama weighed in on June 25 for the second time in three days on the importance of the House’s passing HR 2454, which the Energy and Commerce Committee approved on May 20 and which House Democrats have been modifying to gain the necessary votes for it to pass.

“This legislation will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. That will lead to the creation of new businesses and entire new industries. And that will lead to American jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced,” Obama told reporters in the White House rose garden.

But House Republicans continued to call the bill, which was cosponsored by Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the Energy and Commerce Committee’s chairman, and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee, a job-killer. They also objected to the Democrats’ decision to allow only one of 224 amendments which were proposed to be considered.

That amendment, which Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) proposed on June 25, would have set a goal of making the United States 50% energy independent in 10 years and 100% energy independent in 20 years by awarding competitive prizes to the first group or individual to reach seven energy goals. The amendment was expected to be rejected.

“There’s no disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security; we know it is,” said Obama. “There’s no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy; it’s happening. And there’s no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy.

The basic question

“The only question is: Which country will create these jobs and these industries? And I want that answer to be the United States of America. And I believe that the American people, and the men and women they sent to Congress, share that view,” he continued.

Republicans continued to question the contention by the bill’s supporters that HR 2454 would create a significant number of new jobs. “They neglect to say that for every job this bill creates, two would be lost,” David P. (Phil) Roe (R-Tenn.) said during morning debate on rules governing the measure’s consideration. “For some of our citizens, this bill will be an economic death sentence,” said Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.).

Democrats responded that the bill contained amendments which would facilitate creation of more jobs connected with alternative or renewable energy technologies. Martin T. Heinrich (D-NM) noted that it contained his proposal to allow federal agencies to sign 20-year agreements with clean energy producers, potentially providing new secure markets for emerging processes not available under the existing 10-year limit for such contracts.

“This is heavy lifting, a time to look at what has happened in the past and embrace a new future,” said Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). “We should look to ensure that any American who is displaced by new technology or any other aspect of this bill is taken care of. I plan to make certain that new green jobs are created for them.”

Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Markey’s predecessor as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee, said that HR 2454 will keep electricity rates affordable and encourage more responsible use of coal. “By placing a price on carbon emissions, it will unleash clean energy technologies that will create millions of new jobs,” he maintained.

‘The blunt instrument’

The bill’s global warming regulatory approach also is preferable to simply letting the US Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon emissions under what Boucher described as “the blunt instrument of the Clean Air Act,” he added.

“If Congress does nothing, greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated by EPA without concern for economic impacts,” warned Gene Green (D-Tex.). He said that in smaller refiners could pursue allowances available to small businesses in addition to the 2% of offsets available to refiners overall under HR 2454.

“I believe this bill is the wrong direction for America and for our economy,” responded Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “It will affect utility bills for everyone from Maine to Wyoming.”

“By imposing this massive energy tax and new carbon bureaucracy, this bill will drive millions and millions of jobs overseas,” added Doc Hastings (R-Wash). He said that Democrats promote questionable legislation while refusing debate or allow a vote on a GOP proposal which would encourage more production of domestic energy resources.

Debate was delayed for an hour as the House considered proposals to amend the US Department of the Interior’s budget. Observers said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House majority leaders used the time to line up more votes. Members of the Blue Dog coalition and other moderates as well as Democrats who recently were elected in traditionally Republican district reportedly were being contacted.

Agricultural provision

The bill which reached the floor already contained some changes. The most significant was a provision designed to answer objections raised by Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) after HR 2454 cleared the Energy and Commerce Committee.

“The climate change bill will include a strong agricultural offset program run by the US Department of Agriculture that will allow farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners to participate fully in a market-based carbon offset program,” he said on June 23. “This agreement also addresses concerns about international indirect land use provisions that unfairly restricted US biofuels producers and exempts agriculture and forestry from the definition of a capped sector.”

Several oil and gas associations remained opposed to the measure. The Independent Petroleum Association of America said on June 26 that its members sent more than 13,000 messages to members of Congress in 12 hours. It urged members who had not already contacted House members representing them to do so immediately.

“Independent analysis has shown that the legislation would burden American consumers and businesses with substantially higher energy costs,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack N. Gerard said on June 24. “In fact, when faulty assumptions in the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill are corrected, the annual cost to a household could be as much as $3,300 by 2020, not the $175 the CBO forecast.

“This is more than a few postage stamps,” he observed.

Contact Nick Snow at[email protected]