waxman-markey 2009 bak

see USCAP

end gallery 420 bak

ebell raga sob story goliath sez massive industry backing for w-m, mention uscap

thom ref

kickass

How Citizens United Altered the Climate Debate

07.25.14

HOW CITIZENS UNITED ALTERED THE CLIMATE DEBATE

As delivered on the Senate floor

Thank you, Madam President, this is my seventy-fifth “Time to Wake Up” speech,something of a minor benchmark, I suppose. I come here urging my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. I do this every week that we are in session, hoping that someday spark will hit tinder. But even as the evidence of climate change deepens, the dialogue here in Washington remains one-sided.

Climate change was once a bipartisan concern. In recent years, something changed. I think I know what changed, and I will get to that. But first, let’s reminisce about the bipartisanship.

If we take a look back, in this body we have Republican colleagues who once openly acknowledged the existence of carbon-driven climate change, and, and who called for real legislative action to cut carbon emissions. Imagine that. It wasn’t that long ago.

We have a former Republican presidential nominee,amongst us, who campaigned for the presidency on addressing climate change.

We have Republicans who have spoken favorably about charging a fee on carbon, including an original Republican cosponsor of a bipartisan Senate carbon fee bill.

We have a Republican colleague who cosponsored carbon fee legislation in the House, and another who voted for the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill when he was in the House.

For years,for years there was a steady, healthy heartbeat of Republican support for major U.S. legislation to address carbon pollution. Let me be specific.

In 2003, Senator John McCain was the lead cosponsor of Democrat Joe Lieberman’s Climate Stewardship Act, which would have created a market-based emissions cap and trading program to reduce carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from the biggest U.S. sources.

Here is what Senator McCain said at the time: I’ll quote him, “While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will happen in the future, we do know the emission of greenhouse gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start to reduce these emissions, the better off we will be in the future.”

His Climate Stewardship Act actually got a vote. Imagine that!

And when it did not prevail, Senator McCain reintroduced the measure himself in the following Congress. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island—my predecessor—were among that bill’s cosponsors.

Other Republicans got behind other cap-and-trade proposals: Senator Tom Carper’s “Clean Air Planning Act”, at one time or another, counted Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Lyndsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Susan Collins of Maine among its supporters.

In 2007, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was a lead cosponsor of then-Senator Kerry’s “Global Warming Reduction Act.” Senators Murkowski and Stevens from Alaska, and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, then a Republican, were original cosponsors of the Bingaman “Low Carbon Economy Act.” And that same year, Senator Alexander introduced the “Clean Air/Climate Change Act.” Each of these bills sought to reduce carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade mechanism. Said Senator Alexander, and I’ll quote him, “It is also time to acknowledge that climate change is real, human activity is a big part of the problem, and it is up to us to act.”- 2007

That bipartisan heartbeat remained strong in 2009. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, while he served in the House of Representatives, was one of eight Republicans to vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade proposal.

In that same year, 2009, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, then representing Arizona in the House, was an original cosponsor of the “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act,” to reduce payroll taxes for employers and employees in exchange for equal revenue from a carbon tax. On the House Floor, then-Representative Flake argued the virtues of this approach. Here’s what he said:

If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then just impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral, give commensurate tax relief on the other side. Myself and another Republican colleague have introduced that legislation to do just that. Let’s have an honest debate about whether or not we want to help the environment by actually having something that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as opposed to income.

Was a good idea then, and it is still a good idea now. Those words were echoed that year in the Senate by Senator Collins, a lead cosponsor of the “Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act,” Senator Cantwell’s carbon fee bill. “In the United States alone,” said Senator Collins, “emissions of the primary greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Clearly climate change is a daunting environmental challenge,she said, but we must develop solutions that do not impose a heavy burden on our economy, particularly during these difficult economic times.”

2009, Think of it—there was once, not too long ago, clear and forceful acknowledgement, from leading Republican voices, of the real danger posed by climate change, and of Congress’s responsibility to act.

[Heartbeat Graph]

So what happened? Why did this heartbeat of Republican climate action suddenly flatline?

Madam President, I believe we lost the ability to address climate change in a bipartisan way because of the evils of the Supreme Court’s Citizens Uniteddecision. Our present failure to address climate change is a symptom of things gone awry in our democracy due to Citizens United.That decision did not enhance speech in our democracy; it has allowed bullying, wealthy special interests to suppress real debate.

I’ve spoken before on the Senate Floor about the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision—one of the most disgraceful decisions by any Supreme Court; destined ultimately, I believe, to follow cases like Lochner v. New Yorkonto the ash heap of judicial infamy.

But we’re stuck with it for now.

In a nutshell, the Citizens United decision says this: corporations are people; money is speech; so there can be no limit to corporate money influencing American elections. If that doesn’t seem right, it’s because it’s not.

Phony and improper fact-finding by the five conservative activists on the Supreme Court concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt elections, just couldn’t do it.By some magic, it’s pure. That’s a bad enough finding on its face, but they also didn’t get that limitless, untraceable political money doesn’t have to be spent to damage our democracy. Unlimited corporate spending in politics can corrupt, not just through floods of anonymous attack advertisements; it can corrupt, secretly and more dangerously, through the mere threat of that spending, through private threats and promises. The presiding officer was the Attorney General of her state, and she well knows how much mischief can be done in backrooms by threats and promises, that’s what Attorney Generals see when they go out and investigate.

And as we’re evaluating the effect of Citizens United on our climate change debate, let’s remember one thing; a lot of this special interest money has been spent against Republicans. I’ve had Republican friends tell me, “what are you complaining about?” They’re spending more against us, than against you. There have been times when that has been true. When the Koch Brothers’ polluter money can come in and bombard you in a small primary election, that’s pretty scary. And when the paid-for right-wing attack machine can be cranked up against you in your Republican primary, that’s pretty scary, too. And what the polluters can do with political spending, they can threaten or promise to do, in ways that the public will never see or know—but the candidate will know. The candidate will know, for sure.

So, I wrote a “friend of the Court” brief to the Supreme Court with Senator McCain to highlight for the justices some of the failings and pitfalls of their shameful Citizens United decision. “The dominating influence of super PACs,” we wrote, “makes it all the easier for those seeking legislative favors and results to discreetly threaten such expenditures if Members of Congress do not accede to their demands.” I think we were right.

So how does this bear on climate change?

All that bipartisan activity I talked about preceded Citizens United. After that, polluter attacks funded by Citizens United money, and the threat of those polluter attacks,perhaps promises not to make those attacks, if you behave cast a dark shadow over Republicans who might work with Democrats on curbing carbon pollution. Tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dark-money dollars are being spent by polluters and their front organizations, and God only knows what private threats and promises have been made.

The timing is telling. Before Citizens United, there was an active heartbeat of Republican activity on climate change. Since then, the evidence has only become stronger. But after Citizens United uncorked all that big, dark money, and allowed it to cast its bullying shadow of intimidation over our democracy, Republicans—other than those few who parrot the polluter party line that climate change is just a big old hoax— they have all walked back from any major climate legislation.

We have Senators here who represent historic native villages, now washing into the sea and needing relocation because of climate change and sea-level rise. We have Senators who represent great American coastal cities, now overwashed by high tides because of climate change. We have Senators representing states swept by drought and wildfire. We have Senators whose home-state forests—by the hundreds of square miles—are being killed by the marauding pine beetle. We have Senators whose home states’ glaciers are disappearing before their very eyes. We have Senators whose states are having to raise offshore bridges and highways before rising seas. We have Senators whose emblematic home state species are dying off, like the New Hampshire moose, for instance swarmed by ticks, by the tens of thousands that snows no longer kill.

Yet almost none will work on a major climate bill. It’s not safe to, ever since Citizens United allowed the bullying, polluting special interests to bombard our elections, and threaten and promise to bombard our elections, with their attack ads.

Well, despite all the dark money, despite the threats and intimidation, I still believe this can be a courageous time. We simply need conscientious Republicans and Democrats to work together, in good faith, on a common platform of facts and common sense, to protect the American people and the American economy from the looming effects of climate change in our atmosphere, on our lands, in our oceans. We simply need to shed the shackles of corrupting influence and rise to our duty.

In courageous times, Americans have done far more than that. It’s not asking much to ask this generation to stand up to a pack polluters, just because they have big checkbooks. In previous generations, Americans have put at risk their very lives, fortunes and sacred honor—to serve the higher interests of this great republic. We know it can be done, because it’s been done.

We do not have to be the generation that failed at our duty. We are headed down a road to infamy now, but it doesn’t have to be that way. We can leave a legacy that will echo down the corridors of history, so that those who follow us will be proud of our efforts. But sitting here, doing nothing, yielding to the special-interest bullies and their Citizens United money, pretending the problem isn’t real, that won’t accomplish that.

As I have said before seventy-four times, and as I say tonight for the seventy-fifth time, it is time for us to wake up.

I yield the floor. I thank the presiding officer.

---

our favorite keynote speaker/ CRA:

https://www.nationalbcc.org/news/testimonials/849-presidentceo-harry-alfords-testimony-before-the-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-scheduled-for-september-23rd-2009-69504073

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/20090923alford.pdf

9/09 cites CRA issa rank member

civil rights laws --> job killers

~ waxman-markey

House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Search domain oversight.house.govhttps://oversight.house.gov › sites › democrats.oversight.house.gov › files › documents › 20090923alford.pdf

National Black Chamber of Commerce 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 405, Washington DC 20036 ... Harry C. Alford President/CEO . Honorable Chairman Towns, Ranking Minority Member Issa, the National Black Chamber of ... Our study done by Charles River Associateshas been accepted by many prestigious organizations. In that study, it clearly shows ...

President/CEO Harry Alford's testimony before the ...

Search domain nationalbcc.org

https://www.nationalbcc.org › news › testimonials › 849-presidentceo-harry-alfords-testimony-before-the-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-scheduled-for-september-23rd-2009-69504073

Our study done by Charles River Associates has been accepted by many prestigious organizations. In that study, it clearly shows that certain geography will suffer the greatest impact from losing the estimated 3.3 million jobs as a result of this bill being enacted. Attached is a map showing a 700 mile radius around Nashville, Tennessee. This ...

The next potential negative initiative is the Waxman/Markey Bill which is headed for the Senate. Our study done by Charles River Associates has been accepted by many prestigious organizations. In that study, it clearly shows that certain geography will suffer the greatest impact from losing the estimated 3.3 million jobs as a result of this bill being enacted. Attached is a map showing a 700 mile radius around Nashville, Tennessee. This area accounts for 86% of the national Black population. As you will see the greatest job loss would land into this area. We pray that this bill is killed and we can start over with a responsible bill that doesn’t target specific groups for pain.

In essence, we are most concerned about activity that feeds unemployment and will sustain it and activity that will, in fact, increase unemployment in Black and other minority communities. It doesn’t have to be that way. The “ball” is in your court. Let’s enforce the good laws and prevent the bad ones from exacting their dirty deeds.

In regards to foreclosures we can enhance employment by attending to the above. Increasing employment would directly affect peoples’ ability to pay their mortgages. There isn’t much we can actually do but let the market take its course. Hopefully, we won’t go down that avarice road of sub-prime mortgages again and reign in renegade investors. Banks have been bailed out for the most part but the individual mortgage holders have to feel the pain and take their losses.

==

frontline 4 22

......

JERRY SEINFELD:

And the Oscar goes to An Inconvenient Truth, Davis Guggenheim.

NARRATOR:

In 2006, Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, sounded the alarm to a widening audience, warning of a "planetary emergency."

“An Inconvenient Truth” trailer

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE, 1993-2001:

[Archive] All over the world we need to solve the climate crisis. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That’s a renewable resource. Let's renew it.

We had reality on our side. And tragically, the felt consequences of the climate crisis were growing in intensity and frequency and severity. It was time to regroup again and double down.

NARRATOR:

The president wasn’t persuaded to pursue legislative action but by now had publicly stated that humans were causing climate change. Other Republicans were shifting their positions, too.

REP. BOB INGLIS, R-SC, 1993-99, 2005-11:

For my first six years in Congress, I said that climate change was nonsense. I didn't know anything about it except that Al Gore was for it. That was the end of the inquiry. But then our son, the eldest of our five kids, had just turned 18, so he was voting for the first time. And he came to me and he said, "Dad, I'll vote for you, but you're going to clean up your act on the environment." So that was step one of a metamorphosis for me. Step two was going to Antarctica with the Science Committee, seeing the evidence in the ice core drillings. In that mile of ice is an amazing record of the Earth's atmosphere. What it shows is stable levels of CO2 and then an uptick that coincides with the Industrial Revolution.

We make climate science sound so complicated. It's really not.

JONATHAN PHILLIPS, Congressional staff, 2007-14:

In 2007, climate change was at its most bipartisan level that I think it ever was. You had Republican members of Congress introducing bills about it. Politically, sort of public awareness-wise, this was a bit of a golden era in the United States.

Alliance for Climate Protection promotional video

NANCY PELOSI:

Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and speaker of the House.

NEWT GINGRICH:

And I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican, and I used to be speaker.

NANCY PELOSI:

We don’t always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?

NEWT GINGRICH:

No, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.

NANCY PELOSI:

We need cleaner forms of energy, and we need them fast.

JONATHAN PHILLIPS:

One of the first things that Nancy Pelosi did as speaker was to create the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and I was lucky enough to land my dream job and be a staffer on this committee. This is where laws would be made to deal with what I believed was an existential crisis for humanity.

NARRATOR:

The committee picked up the idea of a carbon cap that the Bush administration had rejected years earlier. They wanted to set a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions and require companies to trade amongst themselves for how much each could emit.

JONATHAN PHILLIPS:

The ultimate goal of the bill was to reduce carbon emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. And that's a lot of fossil industry. A lot of oil and gas producers—the coal miners, the coal companies, refineries. It was going to hit someone’s pocketbook.

NARRATOR:

The plan emerged as the 2008 presidential campaign was ramping up. Republican candidate John McCain came out in support of the cap and trade approach.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, R-Arizona:

The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington.

NARRATOR:

So did his opponent, Democrat Barack Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-Illinois:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

HEATHER ZICHAL, Environmental policy director, Obama campaign:

Having worked on many presidential races and around presidential politics, that was the first year where we really saw climate change as something that American voters really wanted to hear from candidates on. It was interesting, because we were not necessarily having a debate about whether or not climate change was real. It was really, "How collectively can we make a meaningful contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the economy?"

NARRATOR:

Shortly before the presidential election, Exxon Mobil contacted corporate responsibility specialist Bennett Freeman.

BENNETT FREEMAN, SVP, Calvert Investments, 2006-15:

I had an informal conversation in the back of a limousine with Ken Cohen at Exxon Mobil, who was essentially their chief policymaker and public affairs officer. I think the observation that got Ken Cohen's attention was that we had this unprecedented situation where both the Republican and the Democratic nominee for president both committed to the climate agenda. And we had a pretty frank conversation about the implications for the company, particularly on climate.

I thought that Exxon was shamefully out of the action because it had become so apparent that climate science was real. So my advice to Ken was for the company to finally take a public position on climate policy. To make an unequivocal statement accepting the reality of climate science. To make a unequivocal commitment to not fund any more climate denial research, which Exxon was infamous for supporting, for funding directly. And to take a positive, proactive position supporting action at the U.S. federal level.

NARRATOR:

Two weeks before President Obama was inaugurated, Exxon Mobil CEO Tillerson would give a speech that went farther than the company had ever gone on the urgency of the climate change issue.

BENNETT FREEMAN:

Amazingly, that speech happened.

January 2009

REX TILLERSON:

Globally, the outlook for energy expects energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to rise by an average of 1% per year through the year 2030. These two fundamental realities, meeting enormous demand growth and managing the risk of greenhouse gas emissions, are the twin challenges of our time.

BENNETT FREEMAN:

It was, I think, the first time that at least at the CEO level, they started, just started to take a policy position that was potentially constructive. It's important to acknowledge that this was an initial step. But it's equally important, even more important, in my opinion, to emphasize that it was a step that was little and late.

RUSSELL GOLD, FRONTLINE consultant:

I covered Exxon Mobil at The Wall Street Journal at that time, and Rex Tillerson was a breath of fresh air. He starts talking about the importance of pursuing a lower carbon path. But at the end of the day, I can't really point to anything substantive that changed.

NARRATOR:

Rex Tillerson did not respond to interview requests.

Despite his speech, Exxon Mobil did not endorse cap and trade. The bill, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, narrowly passed the House.

MALE SPEAKER:

Yeas are 219, nays are 212. [Applause] The bill is passed.

FEMALE NEWSREADER:

The president won a victory in the House of Representatives on a sweeping climate bill.

JONATHAN PHILLIPS:

June 26, 2009. It was a big day. It was the culmination of years of work. Inside, I think there was a lot of relieved and happy people, because this was the end of a very long road. It was a huge moment.

NARRATOR:

It was the first legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions to pass the House of Representatives. Now the bill needed to get through the Senate.

JONATHAN PHILLIPS:

We were optimistic that the Senate would pick up the bill that summer. And I think we were a little bit naive about that.

HEATHER ZICHAL, Obama adviser on climate & energy, 2009-13:

When somebody's business model is deeply affected or felt to be affected, there are always going to be well-funded interests that make the case "don’t take any action, do not regulate us."

Promotional video

KOCH INDUSTRIES PROMOTIONAL AD:

One of our nation’s largest private companies is proudly built on American values and skill. Koch Industries started in the heartland—

NARRATOR:

Exxon Mobil and other companies continued their opposition to cap and trade, but the fiercest pushback came from another powerful force in the industry.

KOCH INDUSTRIES PROMOTIONAL AD:

You may not always see our name on the products you use—

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, Author, Kochland:

In 2009 Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the United States, whose annual sales are bigger than that of Goldman Sachs, U.S. Steel and Facebook combined.

Koch is just deeply embedded in the fossil fuel infrastructure. It trades, ships and transports natural gas, oil, gasoline. So when you think about anything that would reduce demand or increase the price for fossil fuels, it's a tremendous threat to Koch's business.

This was a moment when the potential for passing climate change regulation was more real than it has ever been in U.S. history, full stop. That's why you saw the Koch political machine kick into high gear.

MALE VOICE:

Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?

CHARLES KOCH, Chairman & CEO, Koch Industries:

[Archive] I mean, there are such a thing as greenhouse gasses, and they're contributing to that, but I don't think anybody knows how much. I don’t think science is settled. I mean, how could it be? As a matter of fact, science is never settled.

NARRATOR:

David Hoffmann was an environmental lawyer at Koch Industries. This is the first time he has spoken on camera about his work there.

DAVID HOFFMANN, Senior counsel, Koch Industries, 2005-10:

My father-in-law, basically his message to me was, "Don't work for the devil. This is a company that doesn't care about the impact they're having on the world, in the world." It encouraged me even more to work for Koch Industries, because I felt like, maybe I can convince people within Koch Industries that environmental compliance is not such a bad thing.

NARRATOR:

Hoffmann was given the job of assessing what the cap and trade bill would mean for Koch Industries. He met with a team of senior Koch lobbyists.

DAVID HOFFMANN:

I was invited to this meeting. The discussion quickly turned from the possibility that this bill might pass and what we should be doing to prepare for it to a discussion about how are we going to prevent it from passing, who are vulnerable Republicans that we need to target to make sure that they don't vote for this bill. We cannot let this bill pass. We won't let this bill pass, and we have to do everything in our power to prevent it from passing.

MALE ANNOUNCER:

Welcome to Americans for Prosperity Foundation's "Defending the American Dream" summit.

NARRATOR:

The Koch-funded organization Americans for Prosperity spearheaded the effort to stop the bill in the Senate.

DAVID KOCH, Former EVP, Koch Industries:

I can’t tell you what a thrill it is for me to be here this morning. Five years ago my brother, Charles, and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity. And it’s beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organization—800,000 activists from nothing five years ago.

NARRATOR:

AFP had begun rallying opposition on the ground across the country. Steve Lonegan, a senior staffer at AFP, helped mobilize the movement.

STEVE LONEGAN, Americans for Prosperity, 2006-13:

[Archive] This country is heading in the wrong direction. But like Americans have always done, we're going to rise to the occasion. You know that. We're not going to let this cap and trade bill pass. Each and every day, I urge every single one of you to get up and think about what you can do that day, what action you can take to change the course of history.

Americans for Prosperity emerged at a time when America was being challenged by the climate change argument. It became very obvious that the Republican Party was not prepared or willing to fight the fight. And Charles Koch, who in my opinion is a hero and a visionary, saw this problem.

[Archive] We as Americans have reached a moment of realization that the very core values and principles are under attack like never before in our lifetime.

We had a multifaceted, hard-hitting approach, pressuring Republicans who were weak-kneed

and Democrats who were vulnerable whose states would be impacted by this.

If you're going to go into a war, like this was, the first thing you need to do is get your troops marching, get them energized. And that's what we did in that summer.

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD:...

jack gerard API opposed:markey co-sponsor

H.R.2454 - American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009111th Congress (2009-2010)

BILL

=

no lnx in orig?

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060039422

CLIMATE

7 years later, failed Waxman-Markey bill still makes waves

Amanda Reilly and Kevin Bogardus, E&E News reporters

Published: Monday, June 27, 2016

It's been seven years since the House passed major legislation to create a cap-and-trade system for heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, and though that legislative attempt ultimately failed, the bill's sponsors still say it sowed the seeds for other climate change efforts.

As is well-known, the Waxman-Markey bill was not taken up by the full Senate and never became law. But looking back over the last seven years, the bill's sponsors and their former congressional aides reminisced with E&E Daily in interviews that the unsuccessful fight was worthwhile and that it has had important repercussions.

"It is always worthwhile to fight for what you believe in," former Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California said in his office in Washington, D.C., "and if you don't succeed at first, you keep trying."

Waxman retired at the end of the 113th Congress, and early last year he joined his son's public affairs and government relations firm, Waxman Strategies. The bill's other sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, has been the junior senator from Massachusetts since 2013.

The two former House lawmakers introduced their bill, formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," on May 15, 2009. The 1,400-page bill would have established emissions caps through 2050 for several greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, and instituted a system for trading emissions allowances.

Waxman-Markey squeaked by the House seven years ago yesterday on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219-212.

Phil Barnett, who was the Democratic staff director at the House Energy and Commerce Committee under Waxman at the time, said working on the bill was "demanding" and "challenging."

"We worked intensively on it for six months ... seven days a week, long hours. The bill was a top priority for Chairman Waxman," said Barnett, now a consultant, adding, "The entire staff poured their hearts and souls into the effort because they thought it would do something to solve the climate problem as well as create economic opportunities and keep costs low."

Looking back, Markey pointed to work on the health care law, another priority for President Obama, for stymying the cap-and-trade bill's momentum in the Senate.

"We finished Waxman-Markey in the last week of June of 2009. So we had finished our work," Markey said. "We were ready to go. And the politics of it then got much more complicated than anyone thought they would have."

The political dynamics around health care reform became complex with the death of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy in August 2009. When Republican Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in an upset victory in a special election in January 2010, the politics of passing major legislation became more difficult because Brown gave Republicans a 41st seat in the Senate, thereby robbing Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) never brought the climate legislation, which was championed in the upper chamber by then-Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, to a vote on the floor. Many people close to the legislation have since blamed a number of factors, including Republican opposition and concessions to special interests.

"It was a disappointment that we couldn't get a bill all the way through, but we highlighted the issue," Waxman said. "We gave it our best effort. We tried to accomplish that goal. But I know from my own history as a member of Congress, I have to work sometimes decades before some of the proposals I made eventually became law."

He cited, for example, the 15 years it took for Congress to pass the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, which gave the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products.

Genesis of executive branch efforts

The collapse of the Waxman-Markey bill in the Senate in 2010 spurred the Obama administration to aggressively use the executive branch to issue regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. EPA issued its finalClean Power Plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants last August and helped negotiate the international climate change deal in Paris last December.

In the first term, "the administration really focused on trying to get a big legislative fix to the climate change problem. As you know, that effort fell short," John Podesta, who was a top adviser to Obama and helped drive White House climate policy from 2014 to 2015, said at a recent conference in California. "In the second term, there was more focus on organizing and coordinating the agencies and the White House offices on both the domestic and international side of the equation."

Podesta, who is now campaign chairman for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, said that, if elected, the former secretary of State would likely focus on executive actions instead of attempting to pass a "grand climate fix" through Congress, even if the Senate flips to Democratic control.

Obama's experience was "illustrative," Podesta said.

"A successful climate agenda requires a senior, serious point person in the White House," he said, "who can drive the agencies to do all they can across the whole suite of federal authorities."

But for the Obama administration, starting with a grand climate fix was "absolutely the right thing to do," Waxman said.

And Markey credited the legislation for setting the stage for the Obama administration's second-term actions by helping to create necessary alliances.

"Much of what the president has done since then, and even if you look at the Clean Power Plan, it's based largely on what was inside of the Waxman-Markey bill that we passed," Markey said. "So we had worked out the partnerships, the coalitions, that were still there when the president decided to develop the Clean Power Plan. So I think it was actually a very helpful political process to have gone through."

Michael Goo, another former top congressional aide who worked on the bill, agreed with the Massachusetts senator, saying, "Waxman-Markey is still the yardstick by which to measure climate programs."

"It was economywide, it set reduction pathways based on what the science was telling us, and it showed us how, by working together with industry, we could craft an effective climate program consistent with a growing economy," said Goo, now with AJW Inc. "And I think, sooner or later, we will return to something like it. "

Clinton vs. Trump

Markey called a potential Hillary Clinton administration paramount to the United States "continuing to be the world leader" on climate change.

Obama promised the globe in the time before the Paris climate negotiations that the United States would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. In Paris last December, more than 190 nations agreed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 C. The agreement also commits countries to periodically revisiting their pledged domestic emissions reductions.

Both Waxman and Markey are optimistic that Clinton will become the next president of the United States.

"I think she would be wise to follow the example of President Obama in trying to put this as a high priority to work with the rest of the world to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change," Waxman said. "I believe she's committed to it."

Markey is harshly critical of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's inconsistent views on climate change. In 2009, before international climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, Trump signed an open letter calling global warming a problem; he's since claimed that it is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to hurt American business.

Trump has more recently vowed to undo the Paris climate pledge, which Obama officials are hopeful will go into force before the beginning of the next administration. Once entered into force, which happens when at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions formally adopt it, the withdrawal process for a nation takes four years.

Markey compared Trump's claim that climate change is a hoax to the businessman's former claim that Obama was born in Kenya and not the United States.

If Trump is elected, Markey said, "every single promise we made to the rest of the world [on climate change] will be broken."

A campaign issue?

Markey also predicted that climate change would become a more hotly debated issue this presidential election compared with the 2008 race, when both parties' candidates expressed support for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and the 2012 race between Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) when climate change was largely a nonissue.

"It's going to become a larger and larger issue that goes right to [Trump's] credibility as a leader in our country," Markey said. "So the more he says it, the better for us because suburban swing Republicans and independent voters believe the science of climate change."

Others have said the same.

"The Clinton campaign is going to push these issues, and their allies in the clean energy business sector are going to push these issues forcefully, especially in swing states," said Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser for the Bill Clinton administration and an energy consultant. "I think they see it as a profound political vulnerability for Trump and the Republicans generally."

Still, a recent Gallup poll found that, of 17 policy issues, the issue gap for climate change is greatest among voters.The poll found that 72 percent of Democrats say that the issue of climate change is "extremely" or "very" important in how they vote for a presidential candidate. Just 25 percent of Republicans say that the issue is important.

Waxman lamented the hyper-partisan nature of Congress and that "compromise" has become a "dirty word" in D.C. He said he's surprised that supporters of cap and trade were unable to harness the business community in attracting more Republican support for the legislation.

"It has been a difficult time that we're going through in getting a more reasonable way to compromise," he said, "because so many of the Republicans that have been elected to office in the last four, six years think that their role is to say no to anything that the Democratic president, Democrats want."

Greg Dotson, who was the chief environmental staffer on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at the time of Waxman-Markey, said that Republican support did not materialize despite support from companies in the oil and chemical sector.

"The assumption and hope was that if you got businesses on, you got Republicans on," said Dotson, who is now the vice president for energy policy at the Center for American Progress. "So we did a lot of work to address business concerns, and we got a lot of business support, and that did not translate to broad Republican support.

"For an incoming president," Dotson added, "that's a pretty scary precedent."

At a recent hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, Markey said it was ironic that coal-industry allies who are complaining about EPA greenhouse gas regulations' impact on jobs didn't support the cap-and-trade legislation.

He complained that the coal industry rejected an offer of billions of dollars for carbon capture and storage technology via the Waxman-Markey bill. Markey argued that the bill attempted to help coal companies stay alive in a way that works "for all the interests."

"We were trying to give them a bridge to the future," he said. "Do you think they wish they could go back to 2009 and grab that money?"

Waxman said that he was hopeful that the dynamic would change in Congress to allow for more collaboration between the parties. He predicted a disaster for Republicans at the polls in November.

"I think it's going to change because I think they're going to go down the tubes in this next election, and that's going to be a lesson to them," Waxman said.

He added: "But I don't know. I'm giving you my wishful thinking."

mashey 2012

p78

P. American Institute of Professional Geologists

This section illustrates Heartland’s ability to disseminate disinformation,

especially to those who like the message and pass it on. IRS-0E. See

Z.2010.08-16, where E&CN brought AIPG to the world’s attention.

The Geological Society of America (GSA) has 24,000 members and the

American Geophysical Union (AGU) has 50,000+. Both have many

climate scientists and strong positions on climate change. 382

The 5,500-member AIPG’s383 tagline is “competence, integrity, ethics,”

but it is rare in abandoning the straightforward climate position common to

most relevant science societies384Some geologists are fine climate

scientists, but petroleum / mining geologists often are not.

385

AIPG Ohio states:

386

“The primary goal of the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)

Ohio Section is to be the principal advocate for geology and the geologic

profession in Ohio, and to promote high ethical standards and continuing

career development for our members.”

The Ohio October 2010 newsletter included a note by Pres. Justice:

387

“This year, we may take special pride that we did not shrink from an issue of

great national importance, House Bill H.R. 2454 the Markey-Waxman “cap &

trade” bill.When the bill, now before the Senate, passed through the House on

June 26, we engaged the entire membership in a timely, democratic vote on

whether to publicly oppose. When you, our membership, voted by a 77%

majority to publicly oppose, the Executive Committee responded, approving a

position statement which reasons strictly on scientific grounds. As a institute

service to the public, we placed the paper on our website, along with its

supporting academic and support research references, made available through

embedded hyperlinks. By so doing, we have given visitors to our website the

ability to conduct independent research. The Ohio position statement has now

been mailed to the governor and over twenty legislators. In addition, national ...

==

hr 2454, ati ~

American Clean Energy and Security Act  also tried in 2009 (gore testified)

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a front group group financed by the biggest coal mining and coal-based utility companies in America, spent more than $92 million during the first two years of the Obama administration, much of it on lobbying and advertising against bills like Waxman Markey. The group gained infamy when one of its consulting firms was caught forging over a dozen letters from local NAACP groups and senior citizens to key lawmakers, asking them to oppose the bill.

One of the recipients of the ACCCE’s largesse was none other than one of Blue Line’s two partners, Michael Meehan. While Meehan led Blue Line’s pro-cap and trade effort, he also served as vice president to an online marketing firm called Virilion. Disclosures show that Virilion, which also rented office space to Blue Line, helped ACCCE manage its anti–cap and trade marketing budget in exchange for $19 million during the two years in which the legislation was debated.

The conflict was complicated by the fact that Meehan, and his partner, David DiMartino, had been employed by an infamous polluter lobbying firm only months prior to taking up the cap-and-trade job. The pair had worked for the BGR Group, a lobbying firm founded by former Republican National Committee chair Haley Barbour, up until the month they were hired by the coalition of environmental groups. While Blue Line worked closely with the Obama administration and its liberal allies, Blue Line maintained a “strategic partnership” with BGR, which at the time counted coal-fired utility giant Southern Company as a major client.

Of course, this conflict of interest was not the only reason Waxman Markey failed. Senator Harry Reid could have written reconciliation rules into the January 2009 budget in order to pass it with fifty-one votes. President Obama could have been more forceful. The lazy traditional media that failed to report on climate crisis, pervasive corruption in Congress, Citizens United providing polluters a greater bludgeon to defeat reform politicians, the USCAP coalition that saddled legislation with industry giveaways and poison pills, the unprecedented lobbying by polluters, the collapse of moderates within the GOP—there are many, many reasons why a climate bill did not pass. But let’s be clear: reformers had issues from the inside as well.

UPDATE: Someone close to the Waxman Markey reform efforts e-mailed to note that in addition to the coalition money spent on field, individual advocacy groups, including the Sierra Club and several other green groups, spent an undisclosed amount on their own grassroots organizing that would bring the total above the $900,000 referenced above. Still, disclosures show the coalition Clean Energy Works spent a disproportionate amount on advertising and media consultants. lee f?

theda uscap: Following months of intricate bargaining, USCAP forces scored an initial, hardfought

success when, on June 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the

Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security” bill by a vote of 219 to 212.

:{Supporters were elated, but they got a big shock almost at once as oppositional lobbying

and media campaigns went into overdrive and fierce grassroots Tea Party protests broke

out. }:During the summer Congressional recess, telegenic older white protestors carrying

homemade signs appeared at normally sleepy “town hall” sessions to harangue

Congressional Democrats who supported health reform as well as the Waxman-Markey

bill. Protests were bolstered by generously funded advertising campaigns targeted on

Senators who would be asked to decide about cap and trade bills in the fall. In hasty

response, cap and trade supporters threw together a national “war room” and public

3

relations campaign. They plowed ahead toward what they hoped would be a bipartisan

deal in the Senate.

all:

theda:

My interlocutor had played a major role in efforts to get Congress to pass “cap

and trade” legislation during 2009 and 2010. Hefty DC players had worked together in

the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (otherwise known as USCAP), a coalition of

business chieftains and leaders of big environmental organizations that was publicly

launched in 2007 to push legislation to place acap on carbon emissions and create an

open market for energy producers to trade allowances under the cap. Once legislated,

caps were meant to be slowly ratcheted down in future decades, so U.S. companies and

citizens would have an incentive to use less carbon-based energy and invest in green

technologies. This “cap and trade” approach was seen by supporters as a quintessentially

market-oriented way to nudge the vast U.S. economy through a gradual transition to

reliance on sources of energy that would do less damage to the climate.

:{The model

originated with economists looking to harness market forces}: and found some favor with

major corporations and Republicans, so it seemed to be a good bet for building bipartisan

coalitions in Congress.1 Votes from some Republicans would be essential, because votes

for carbon caps would be hard to find among Democrats representing states with strong

coal or oil sectors or states heavily reliant on electricity generated in coal-fired plants.

To many savvy players, prospects for a legislative push for cap and trade looked

excellent during and right after the presidential campaign of 2008. Versions of this

approach were touted not just by the Democratic nominee and eventual victor Barack

2

Obama, but also by the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, John McCain – who was one of

the favorite GOPers among big environmentalists, because he had repeatedly cosponsored

carbon-control bills. Environmentalists who favored cap and trade presumed

that John McCain would be on their side – it was just a question of when they could make

it possible for him to play a pivotal role in forging a bipartisan deal in the Senate. With

Democratic president Barack Obama moving into the White House in early 2009 and

Democratic House and Senate leaders pledged to act on climate legislation, the time

looked ripe to move full speed ahead. On January 15, 2009, USCAP leaders issued a

meticulously negotiated blueprint for a new cap and trade system and geared up for nonstop

lobbying to get legislation through Congress.2

Visions danced in their heads of a

celebratory White House signing ceremony nicely timed to tee up U.S. leadership in the

next international climate confab scheduled for December 2009 in Copenhagen.

Following months of intricate bargaining, USCAP forces scored an initial, hardfought

success when, on June 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the

Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security” bill by a vote of 219 to 212.

:{Supporters were elated, but they got a big shock almost at once as oppositional lobbying

and media campaigns went into overdrive and fierce grassroots Tea Party protests broke

out. }:During the summer Congressional recess, telegenic older white protestors carrying

homemade signs appeared at normally sleepy:{“town hall” sessions to harangue

Congressional Democrats who supported health reform as well as the Waxman-Markey}:

bill. Protests were bolstered by generously funded advertising campaigns targeted on

Senators who would be asked to decide about cap and trade bills in the fall. In hasty

response, cap and trade supporters threw together a national “war room” and public

relations campaign. They plowed ahead toward what they hoped would be a bipartisan

deal in the Senate. p 3

But one coalitional effort after another fell apart in late 2009 and early 2010, as

putative Senate compromises came and went. In July 2010,Senate Leader Harry Reid

finally pulled the plug when it became clear that no variant of cap and trade or any other

kind of energy legislation had any prospect of coming close to the 60 votes needed to

clear his chamber’s filibuster bar.During this pivotal year,:{ Republicans, including longtime

supposed friends of the environmental movement like John McCain, simply melted

away; and in the end GOP Senators unanimously refused to support of any variant of cap

and trade}:.3 In public opinion polls, Americans registered increased wariness about

government action on carbon caps – with public worries stoked by opponents claiming

that new taxes and regulations would cost jobs, reduce family incomes, and stifle

businesses struggling to recover from the Great R

exerpt:

Impact on Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

It was reported that the passage of ACES [W-M] in Congress would increase the likelihood that a successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be adopted at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen. The Guardian US environment correspondent noted that ACES passing the US House of Representatives "delivers an important boost to the prospects of reaching an agreement for international action on climate change at Copenhagen this year."^[47] The NYTimes noted that "the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was in Washington on Friday to meet with Mr. Obama, strongly endorsed the bill even though it fell short of European goals for reducing the emissions of heat-trapping gases."^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) is an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress (H.R. 2454) that would establish a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 by a vote of 219-212, and is still in consideration in the Senate.^[1]

This vote was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."^[2]

The bill is also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, after its authors, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Waxman is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey is the chairman of that committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

Internationally, the House's passage of the ACES bill "established a marker for the United States when international negotiations on a new climate change treaty begin later this year."^[2] Hearings on the draft of the legislation took place the week of April 20, 2009 and the bill was passed by the House on June 26, 2009. However, in July 2010 it was reported that the Senate would not consider climate change legislation before the end of the legislative term.^[3]

Summary of provisions

The bill proposes a cap and trade system, under which the government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. Companies then buy or sell permits to emit these gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO₂₎. The cap is reduced over time to reduce total carbon emissions. The legislation would set a cap on total emissions over the 2012–2050 period and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to emit greenhouse gases. After allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them (the trade part of the program). Those entities that emit more gases face a higher cost, which provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Key elements of the bill include:^[4]

• Requires electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
• Subsidizes new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including renewable energy ($90 billion in new subsidies by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
• Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day.
• It sets a slightly higher target for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases than that proposed by President Barack Obama. The bill requires a 17-percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020; Obama has proposed a 14 percent reduction by 2020. Both plans would reduce United States' emissions by about 80 percent by 2050. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as efforts to prevent tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
• It includes a renewable electricity standard (almost identical to a renewable portfolio standard, but narrowly tailored to electrical energy) requiring each electricity provider who supplies over 4 million MWh to produce 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (such as wind, solar, and geothermal) by 2020. There is a provision whereby 5% of this standard can be met through energy efficiency savings, as well as an additional 3% with certification of the Governor of the state in which the provider operates.

Alternative compliance payments are $25/MWh in violation of the standard, adjusted for inflation beginning in 2010.

• It provides for modernization of the electrical grid
• It provides for expanded production of electric vehicles and other advanced automobile technology.
• It mandates significant increases in energy efficiency in buildings, home appliances, and electricity generation.

The bill's cap-and-trade program allocates 85% of allowances to industry for free, auctioning the remainder.^[5] The revenue from these allowances will be used to finance conservation of tropical forests abroad and to support low-income households.^[6] 30% of the allowances will be allocated directly to local distribution companies (LDCs) who are mandated to use them exclusively for the benefit of customers. 5% will go to merchant coal generators and others with long-term power purchase agreements.

[edit] CBO analysis

A study in June 2009 by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated that the bill would be roughly deficit-neutral for the government over the next decade:^[7]

"...enacting the legislation would increase revenues by $873 billion over the 2010-2019 period and would increase direct spending by $864 billion over that 10-year period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010-2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010-2019 period..."

The study also indicated that the tax burden on individual households would be limited:^[8]

"...the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household...households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245. Added costs for households in the second lowest quintile would be about $40 that year; in the middle quintile, about $235; and in the fourth quintile, about $340. Overall net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income."

The analysis did not attempt to quantify the environmental benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The report also stated that the "net financial impact of the program on households in different income brackets would depend in large part on how many allowances were sold (versus given away), how the free allowances were allocated, and how any proceeds from selling allowances were used. That net impact would reflect both the added costs that households experienced because of higher prices and the share of the allowance value that they received in the form of benefit payments, rebates, tax decreases or credits, wages, and returns on their investments." In other words, while a cap and trade system imposes costs on high emitters, it can generate revenues for low emitters that sell permits to them. While the government sets the bar on emission levels, the market determines who gains and who loses.

Public debate

Supporters of and arguments for the bill

The bill is supported by a number of environmental organizations including, the Defenders of Wildlife,^[9] the Alliance for Climate Protection,^[10] the Environmental Defense Fund,^[11][12][13] the National Wildlife Federation,^[14] The Nature Conservancy,^[15][16] the Audubon Society,^[17] the Natural Resources Defense Council^[18] and the Sierra Club.^[19] The League of Conservation Voters has threatened to withhold endorsements from any Representative who votes against the bill.^[20] In addition to environmental organizations the Energy and Commerce Committee received letters of support from a broad range of organizations, including the United Auto Workers,Exelon, General Electric, Dow Chemical Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and DuPont^[12] The New York Times noted that "industry officials were split, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposing the bill and some of the nation’s biggest corporations, including Dow Chemical and Ford, backing it."^[2]

The Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), a national grassroots organization, issued a press release after the vote stating "House passage today of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a step in the right direction in the fight against dangerous climate change and for developing cleaner, more secure energy resources."^[21]David Jenkins, REP vice president for government and political affairs, noted that "Doing nothing is not an option. The costs and risks of failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions are too high. We owe it to our country and to our country's future citizens to take action. Today, the House looked to the future and did the right thing for our economy, security, and environment."^[21]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated the discussion draft version of the bill to cost average households $98–$140 per year. A preliminary update of this study says that the changes "would likely result in lower allowance prices, a smaller impact on energy bills, and a smaller impact on household consumption."^[22]

Economist Paul Krugman argued for the bill in September 2009, while attacking the bill's opponents: "It’s important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either."^[23] During May 2009, he argued that a cap and trade system is better than a carbon tax. He explained how the incentives work:"Even when polluters get free permits, they still have an incentive to reduce their emissions, so that they can sell their excess permits to someone else. That’s not just theory: allowances for sulfur dioxide emissions are allocated to electric utilities free of charge, yet the cap-and-trade system for SO2 has been highly successful at controlling acid rain."^[24]

[edit] Arguments against the bill

Criticism has focused on ultimate costs and benefits of the plan. A report written for the Heritage Foundation on the discussion draft of the bill claims that the economy would react to this cap-and-trade system like it would to an energy crisis.^[25] This same report also claimed that the impact on global temperature by the end of the 21st century would amount to a reduction of no more than 0.2° Celsius.

Economist Arnold Kling said the bill "maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction".^[26] Other economists have argued that the bill will create significant financial costs. The Wall Street Journal accused the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of significantly underestimating the bill's ultimate costs, pointing out supposed flaws in its calculations. The Wall Street Journal also suggested that the bill's costs would disproportionately affect lower-income households, for which the CBO estimates did not account.^[27] The New York Times reported that the bill's provisions to levy tariffs on Chinese imports due to carbon emissions could provoke a trade war.^[28] The Competitive Enterprise Institute argued that the bill was essentially the "largest tax hike in world history".^[29] The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the petroleum and natural gas industry, said the bill would place "disproportionate burden on all consumers of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, propane and other petroleum products", and by 2035, it would cause gasoline prices in excess of $4.00 per gallon by today's standards.^[30]

Nuclear power plants generate minimal greenhouse gases, yet one critic wrote that the bill does not sufficiently advocate this clean power source. In response to this criticism, House of Representatives staff members wrote that the electricity generated by nuclear power requires the purchase of far fewer allowances than other forms of electricity generation; that the bill provides various types of financial support to build clean energy generating sources, including nuclear; and that an EPA study indicated that twice as many nuclear plants would be built if the law is passed versus the status quo.^[31]

There is criticism that unless China and India adopt similar emissions standards, the impact on global climate will be insubstantial. This is largely an argument based on the leading role these two countries have obtained in carbon dioxide emissions which could reach 34% of the global total by 2030.^[32]

Critics also note that the bill would create the largest market in carbon in the world. It would also "open up the so-called 'sub-prime carbon' market in carbon offsets, whereby industries can claim emissions reductions by investing in various projects around the world that theoretically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) claims it's virtually impossible to verify whether carbon offsets represent real emissions reductions.^[33]"

On June 26, 2009, Reuters reported that "[s]tates that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles"^[34] The article noted that representatives from members of the Eastern U.S. 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which joins six U.S. states with Canada's Manitoba, and the 11-state-and-four Canadian province Western Climate Initiative were supporting the legislation, even though the Eastern market member states, which have already been operating under a cap-and-trade system, "would lose a direct revenue stream of hundreds of millions of dollars if the federal plan were passed."^[34] The three existing regional carbon cap and trade programs, which are in varying states of development, would likely be merged into the national plan, since "the federal 'cap-and-trade' plan pre-empts any similar state scheme from 2012 to 2017."^[34] However, ACES leaves states the option of resuming trade of pollution credits after 2017 and "would allow holders of RGGI allowances to convert them into federal allowances, which means the states will likely hold auctions until the federal plan begins.^[34]

Citizens Against Government Waste named both Reps. Waxman and Markey the May 2009 Porkers of the month for "adding and altering provisions to placate special interests and buy the votes of appropriately skeptical members of Congress".^[35]

[edit] Debate among environmental organizations and scientists

While the Environmental Defense Fund^[13] and many other environmental organizations strongly support the bill, other environmentalists have sharply criticized the legislation in its present form as too weak and have called urgently for it to be amended so as to include additional and more vigorous measures to protect climate and natural resources.

Some environmentalists have criticized the fuel efficiency standards in the "cash for clunkers" provision of the bill, because new cars would only need to get 22 MPG to be considered fuel efficient.^[36][37] New SUVs and pickup trucks would only need to get 18 MPG to be considered fuel efficient.^[38] Vehicles older than 25 years are not eligible for the program. CNN reported that "One of the biggest criticisms is that it's not very environmentally friendly."^[39]

The New York Times has noted that "while some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it."^[2] Friends of the Earth, an international environmental organization, announced its opposition to ACES believing the bill to be too weak and cited support from Shell Oil Company and Duke Energy as evidence of the bill's shortcomings.^[40] Environmental organizations critical of the bill say the bill falls short by allowing for 85 percent or more of pollution permits to be given away free of cost to the electricity sector. A coalition of environmental groups released a statement saying that "to craft a bill that allows for 2 billion tons of offsets per year — roughly equivalent to 27 percent of 2007 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — is to allow for continued and dangerous delay in real action by our country at a time when the world is looking to the U.S. for leadership on climate change."^[41] Critics of the bill about it not going far enough, claim that there were too many concessions made in rewriting the bill and that they gave into special interests.^[42] Thus, making the bill weak and potentially harmful to the economy and environment.^[43]

Dr. James E. Hansen, one of the first to warn about the risks of climate change and an advocate of taking related action, also has argued strongly against the bill: 1) It restricts the EPA's ability to regulate CO₂ emissions from power plants; 2) it sets "meager" targets for emission reductions, with only a 13% reduction by 2020; 3) it lacks certain controls important to the trading of allowances to emit carbon; and 4) fails to set predictable prices for carbon, making it harder for businesses and households to make investment decisions. Dr. Hansen advocates a carbon tax rather than a cap and trade system.^[44] Alternatively, Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins have introduced the Carbon Limits and Energy for Americas Renewal (CLEAR) Act. This bill proposes a Cap and Dividend approach in which 75% of the revenue goes to tax payers and the rest to development of renewable energy. ^[45]

[ Media response

News agencies Reuters & Agence France-Presse and United Kingdom newspaper The Guardian reported the narrow passage of the 'historic'^[46][47] legislation in the House, regarding the vote to be a 'major'^[46][48] and 'hard-fought'^[46] victory for President Obama, while an Associated Press article, carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, reported the vote to be "a triumph for [the] U.S. President."^[49]

The New York Times commented that "the House legislation reflects a series of concessions necessary to attract the support of Democrats from different regions and with different ideologies. In the months of horse-trading before the vote Friday, the bill’s targets for emissions of heat-trapping gases were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for industries were sweetened."^[2] Business Week emphasized its perceived significance of the legislation and its passage in the House, declaring "June 26, 2009, will go down as an historic moment in world’s efforts to tackle climate change. For the first time, a Congressional body passed legislation that would place mandatory limits on the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming."^[50]

[edit] Impact on Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

It was reported that the passage of ACES in Congress would increase the likelihood that a successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be adopted at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen. The Guardian US environment correspondent noted that ACES passing the US House of Representatives "delivers an important boost to the prospects of reaching an agreement for international action on climate change at Copenhagen this year."^[47] The NYTimes noted that "the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was in Washington on Friday to meet with Mr. Obama, strongly endorsed the bill even though it fell short of European goals for reducing the emissions of heat-trapping gases."^[2]

[edit] Legislative history

It was offered as a "discussion draft" in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on March 31, 2009.^[51] A final version of the legislation was introduced on May 15, 2009 by the same title, assigned bill number H.R. 2454.^[52]

On May 21, 2009, the bill passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 33-25, largely falling along political party lines.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Energy and Commerce Committee markup

Republicans proposed over 400 amendments to the bill, the majority of which many think were proposed to delay passage.^[53] Some of the more prominent from both parties are listed below:

[edit] Accepted

• John Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment that establishes a bank to assist with loans for clean energy development.
• Betty Sutton (D-OH) offered an amendment establishing a "Cash for Clunkers" program, giving $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase or lease of more fuel efficient vehicles if anyone trades in qualifying, less-efficient vehicles.
• Kathy Castor (D-FL) offered an amendment giving states the ability to adopt feed-in tariffs for renewable energy as defined in the bill.
• Henry Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment creating a classification of "central procurement state" that allows existing renewable energy legislation passed by states before January 1, 2009 to supersede some provisions of the bill.

[edit] Defeated

• Mike Rogers (R-MI) offered an amendment that would have cancelled the Act unless China and India adopt similar standards.
• Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered an amendment that would have cancelled the Act if the average price of electricity in a residential sector increases by 10% or more. After defeat, he offered a second amendment that would have cancelled only Title III (the cap-and-trade plan) of the Act if residential electricity prices rise by 20%. After defeat of this measure, George Radanovich (R-CA) offered a similar amendment that would have cancelled only Title III if electricity prices in the residential sector rise by 100%. This measure was also defeated. In the hearing, Bart Stupak (D-MI) called into question the seriousness of these "message amendments." He stated they are only offered to be used by the Republicans to spur sensational headlines about lack of sympathy by Democrats. Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) responded that they were indeed "message amendments" to the American people in an attempt to convey that supporters of the bill care nothing about cost to the ratepayer.
• Lee Terry (R-NE) offered an amendment that would have cancelled the Act if average gas prices reach $5 per gallon.
• Fred Upton (R-MI) offered an amendment that would have suspended the Act if the nation's unemployment rate for the prior year reaches 15% as a result of the Act.
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) offered an amendment that would have required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) to label energy bills, food, manufactured products and fuels with the price impact this law has on the item.
• Cliff Stearns (R-FL) offered an amendment that would have removed existing nuclear power from the baseline of the Renewable Electricity Standard. (This amendment would have potentially reduced the overall implementation of renewable energy under this act by around 20%, the amount of nuclear electricity generation in the United States).^[54]

By the end of May 20, 2009, 2 Republican and 24 Democratic amendments had been adopted. 15 Republican amendments had been defeated. No amendment sponsored by a Democrat had yet been defeated.

[edit] Rules Committee resolution

At 3:47 AM on June 26, 2009, H.Res. 587 was reported to the house,^[55] which amended H.R. 2454, adding to the bill. This resolution was passed by the house just hours later at 11:21 AM. Republicans complained that neither the public nor the Representatives were given adequate time to study the 310-page amendment.^[56] Markey refuted Rush Limbaugh's assertion that the bill was not available at all, saying the bill was available to read on the internet and at the reading clerk's desk since the 3:47 AM reporting.^[57]

[edit] Final debate and floor vote

Speaker Nancy Pelosi scheduled the vote for June 26, 2009.^[58] The week leading up to the vote was marked by courting moderate Republicans and on-the-fence Democrats from rural and coal districts to support the legislation in what was expected to be a close vote.^[59] On the day of the vote, Democrats were still working to ensure they had the votes needed to pass the bill. Republicans tried to pull back their proposed amendments, realizing they were giving the Democrats more time to corral votes, however, they were unable to pull their proposed amendments off the floor.^[59] Shortly before the vote, John Boehner read aloud to the House from most of the 300 page Manager's amendment that was filed at 3:09AM on the day of the vote.^[60][61] He voiced opposition to the practice of changing bills in the middle of the night before the vote, and concern that the Manager's amendment made substantial changes to the bill. He did not want the House to vote on the bill before the members could learn what was in the amendment, so he read much of it aloud. Manager's amendments are supposed to be for clerical changes only, not substantive ones. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) returned from rehab to cast an 'Yes' vote, and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) delayed resigning the House to vote for the legislation as well.^[60]

The bill was approved by the House by a vote of 219-212, with 8 Republicans supporting, and 44 Democrats voting against, and 3 members not voting.^[62] All Representatives present at the time of the vote had cast votes. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), and John Sullivan (R-OK) missed the vote due to 'a family conflict,' travel abroad in Albania, and 'alcohol addiction treatment,' respectively.^[63]

Democratic votes against largely came from freshman in Republican-leaning seats, conservative "blue dog" democrats, as well as Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity or areas with large numbers manufacturing jobs.^[2][62][64] However, some Democrats from liberal districts, like Pete Stark (CA) voted against the bill because he considered the bill 'watered-down.'^[65] Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) voted against the bill because he considered the bill 'too-weak' and opposed offsets, among other similar criticisms.^[66]

Republicans supporting the bill included Army Secretary nominee John M. McHugh and moderate Republican Main Street Partnership caucus members Mary Bono Mack(R-CA), Mike Castle (R-DE), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ).^[62] Kirk and Castle are also members of theRepublicans for Environmental Protection caucus.

[edit] Required annual reductions in GHG emissions

The table below summarizes the required GHG emission reductions (benchmark is 2005 emission levels)^[67]:

[edit] See also

• Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
• Low-carbon fuel standard
• Low carbon power generation
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

[edit] References

1. ^ http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/actions_votes
2. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-nyt_1-6) Broder, John (2009-06-26). "House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=1&hp. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
3. ^ Hulse, Carl; Herszenhorn, David M. (2010-07-22). "Democrats Call Off Climate Bill Effort". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/politics/23cong.html.
4. ^ Summary-House of Representatives-July 2009
5. ^ Stone, Andy (2009-06-24). "A Winner In The New Climate Legislation". Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/24/climate-carbon-cap-and-trade-business-energy-carbon.html. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
6. ^ "Tropical Forest Conservation in Waxman Markey". Stevenson, Andrew. June 9, 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2009.
7. ^ CBO Analysis of Waxman-Markey June 2009
8. ^ CBO-Analysis of Waxman-Markey-June 2009
9. ^ Defenders of Wildlife Action Center
10. ^ 3cdn.net
11. ^ Climate 411 » Why This Is the Pivotal Climate Vote of Our Lives, Environmental Defense Fund
12. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-Committee2454_11-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-Committee2454_11-1) energycommerce.house.gov
13. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-EDF9854_12-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-EDF9854_12-1) Key Features of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, - Environmental Defense Fund
14. ^ NWF View National Wildlife Federation
15. ^ Climate Change - Climate Change: Climate Change Bill Heads to the House Floor The Nature Conservancy
16. ^ Carbon Cap: Who Supports It?, Environmental Defense Fund
17. ^ Audubon: Issues & Actions, Audubon Society
18. ^ Switchboard, from NRDC :: Michael Oko's Blog :: Climate and Energy Legislation: "Now is the Time to Act", Natural Resources Defense Council
19. ^ The Economist-Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop-September 2009
20. ^ LCV: No endorsement for climate bill foes - Glenn Thrush, POLITICO.com
21. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-REP626_20-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-REP626_20-1) Press Releases, Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America)
22. ^ Samuelsohn, Darren (2009-05-19). "Revised House climate bill carries smaller price tag, EPA report says". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/05/19/19greenwire-revised-house-climate-bill-carries-smaller-pri-19116.html. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
23. ^ NYT-Paul Krugman-It's Easy Being Green-September 24,2009
24. ^ NYT-Paul Krugman-The Perfect, The Good, The Planet
25. ^ "The Economic Impacts of Waxman-Markey". The Heritage Foundation. 2009-05-13. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2438.cfm. Retrieved 2009-05-14.
26. ^ The Obama Pattern, The Atlantic, June 26, 2009.
27. ^ The Cap and Tax Fiction, The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009.
28. ^ Possible Plan for Tariffs on Imports From China Remains Alive in House Climate Bill, The New York Times, June 24, 2009.
29. ^ Trojan Hearse, The New York Post, June 25, 2009.
30. ^ Letter to Congress, American Petroleum Institute, June 23, 2009.
31. ^ Huffington Post-Steve Kirsch-Waxman-Markey: Three Unanswered Questions
32. ^ "International Energy Outlook, Chapter 7". Energy Information Administration. June 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/emissions.pdf. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
33. ^ Good News, There's a Climate Bill — Bad News, It Stinks, The Institute for Policy Studies, May 19, 2009
34. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-gardner_33-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-gardner_33-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-gardner_33-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-gardner_33-3) Gardner, Timothy; Henderson, Peter (2009-06-26). "Green states lining up behind U.S. climate change bill". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55P6KF20090627. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
35. ^ "Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey CAGW’s May Porkers of the Month". Citizens Against Government Waste. May 2009. http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11276. Retrieved 2009-07-11.^{[dead link]}
36. ^ Belson, Ken (May 6, 2009). "Congress Close on ‘Cash for Clunkers’". The New York Times. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/congress-close-on-cash-for-clunkers/?hp. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
37. ^ "Dems Finally Stop Pretending Cash-for-Clunkers Is an Environmental Bill". Washington Independent. May 19, 2009. http://washingtonindependent.com/43628/dems-finally-stop-pretending-cash-for-clunkers-is-an-environmental-bill.
38. ^ Crawley, John (June 2, 2009). "Senate set to consider plan to boost auto sales". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5515YB20090602?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews.
39. ^ Willis, Gerri; Finance, Personal (June 10, 2009). "Money for your gas guzzler". CNN. http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/10/pf/saving/cash_for_clunkers.
40. ^ Friends of the Earth U.S.
41. ^ redd-monitor.org^{[unreliable source?]}
42. ^ Power, Stephen (2009-06-27). "Impact of 'Offsets' to Limit Emissions Is Uncertain". Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124605745731563541.html. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
43. ^ theclean.org^{[unreliable source?]}
44. ^ Hansen, James (2009-07-09). "G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change". The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html. Retrieved 2010-01-10.
45. ^ Eilperin, Juliet (2010-04-12). "CLEAR Act delivers, study says". The Washington Post. http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/04/clear_act_delivers_study_says.html. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
46. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-afphistoric_45-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-afphistoric_45-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-afphistoric_45-2) AFP: US House passes historic climate change bill:
47. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-Guardian27_46-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-Guardian27_46-1) Goldenberg, Suzanne (2009-06-27). "Barack Obama's US climate change bill passes key Congress vote". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/27/barack-obama-climate-change-bill. Retrieved 2009-07-07.
48. ^ House passes landmark climate change bill, Reuters
49. ^ U.S. House passes climate change bill, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
50. ^ House Passes Carbon Cap-and-Trade Bill - BusinessWeek
51. ^ "Chairmen Waxman, Markey Release Discussion Draft of New Clean Energy Legislation". Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2009-03-31. http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560&Itemid=1. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
52. ^ "Chairmen Waxman and Markey Introduce "The American Clean Energy and Security Act"". Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2009-05-15. http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1622:chairmen-waxman-and-markey-introduce-the-american-clean-energy-and-security-act&catid=155:statements&Itemid=55. Retrieved 2009-05-19.
53. ^ "Waxman Seeks Bipartisan Help in Passing Climate Bill". Bloomberg. 2009-05-18. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aCOW1G1GFgAQ&refer=energy. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
54. ^ "U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares". Nuclear Energy Institute. April 2009. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricitygenerationfuelshares. Retrieved 2009-05-21.
55. ^ "House actions on H.R. 2454". http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02454:@@@S.
56. ^ "EPW Republicans to Majority: American Public Deserves to Know What Is In the Global Warming Bill". 2009-07-07. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=567bcb03-802a-23ad-43b2-c9ad4c60bf02.
57. ^ Richert, Catharine. "Limbaugh claims the climate bill wasn't written when it came up for a vote". Politifact, St. Petersburg Times.. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/rush-limbaugh/limbaugh-claims-climate-bill-wasnt-written-when-it. Retrieved June 29, 2009.
58. ^ O'Connor, Patrick (June 23, 2009). "Nancy Pelosi to bring climate change bill to floor". Politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24068.html. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
59. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-politico32_58-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-politico32_58-1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html
60. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-cqpolitics_59-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-cqpolitics_59-1) http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003154783
61. ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/26/house_gop_leader_boehner_filibusters_cap-and-trade_bill.html
62. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-House_vote_61-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-House_vote_61-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act#cite_ref-House_vote_61-2) Roll call vote 477, via Clerk.House.govl
63. ^ http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-kennedy-returns-for-climate-vote-2009-06-26.html
64. ^ http://www.swingstateproject.com/
65. ^ The Online Office of Congressman Pete Stark - STATEMENT OPPOSING WATERED-DOWN GLOBAL WARMING LEGISLATION:
66. ^ Dennis Kucinich Lays Out Why He Voted Against Clean Energy Act, Cleveland Leader
67. ^ Summary of Clean Energy and Security Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02454:@@@D&summ2=m&

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act"

Categories: 111th United States Congress | United States proposed federal legislation | Emissions trading | Renewable-energy economy | Climate change law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act

nyer

Meanwhile, the House bill, known as Waxman-Markey (for Edward J. Markey, of Massachusetts), passed on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219-212. Eight Republicans supported it. But there were omens for the Senate. The White House and Waxman spent the final days before the vote negotiating with members of the House representing two crucial interest groups: coal and agriculture. Despite cutting generous deals, they ended up with only limited support. Worse, several members who had promised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi their votes reneged. One of them, Ciro Rodriguez, of Texas, ducked into the chamber, quickly cast a no vote, and then sprinted out. Anthony Weiner, a Brooklyn Democrat and one of Pelosi’s whips, chased after him, yelling, “Ciro! Ciro!”

As the scene unfolded on the floor, Rosengarten and other Senate aides watched from the gallery. Rosengarten turned to a colleague and said, “Now it’s our turn. We’ve got to go pass this thing in the Senate.”