« Bachmann On Climate-Change Bill: "We Choose Liberty, Or We Choose Tyranny" | Home | TPMDC Saturday Roundup »
House Climate Bill Passes...Barely
After House Minority Leader John Boehner's pseudo-filibuster, the final vote on the Waxman-Markey bill was 219-212 with eight Republicans voting in favor and 44 Democrats voting against. Interestingly, at least one Democrat voted for the bill but was then cleared to switch to a 'no' vote once final passage was assured. The bill needed only 218 votes to pass, but the single additional vote will spare certain vulnerable Democrats from the charge that they were the deciding vote on the bill's success.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The comments in reaction to this vote on the Wall Street Journal are ballistic:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124610499176664899.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments
June 27, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know what the reasons were for Dems like DeFazio, Kucinich and Stark voting against the climate change bill? I have not followed it very closely and was just curious...
June 27, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They think it was too weak so they voted against it. As if there's a better bill just around the corner.
June 27, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one case where I very much agree with your position. Unlike health care- where a bad bill that could forestall real reform for a long time is much worse than no bill at all- on climate it's critically important simply to get the ball rolling, especially to show the rest of the world (as in, India and China) that the US is not going to just keep refusing to do anything at all.
June 27, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ, Steve and FreeRider agreeing on something. The 2nd coming of Christ must be coming.
But yeah Steve I agree too. No matter if this climate bill is perfect or not, it's important that it get's passed and goes into law because it's a start, it's definetly better than doing nothing at all and like what you said: "critically important simply to get the ball rolling, especially to show the rest of the world (as in, India and China) that the US is not going to just keep refusing to do anything at all".
You made a very good point Steve and all of you Steve FreeRider and the rest of the TPM Community have a good weekend and most importantly, keep happy thoughts.
June 27, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep pretty much what FreeRider said. Everything that they wanted for the most part was not in the bill and because they couldn't get everything they wanted, they voted againist it out of spite. They should know that in government there is no perfect bill. Every bill has flaws, things not in it that should be, compromises made so that the bill can be passed etc. Is this bill perfect? No, it's it a start and better than nothing? Ansolutely. Can't say if FreeRider agrees with me on this position, but I do.
Am I mad at these guys for their no vote? Kinda of. I'll just remember this vote when DeFazio runs for Governor in Oregon and when it will be that time to bring out the checkbook.
June 27, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... there are no more perfect representatives than there are perfect bills.
June 27, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, true Kevin. To be honest there are good representatives, but there's no such thing as a perfect one. I've learned through my time that man as a whole is not perfect. Yes the bill has flawa, but it's better than passing nothing. Because as i've said this before (and I wish to God it wasn't true but it is) there's no such thing as the perfect bill.
June 27, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to today's Portland Oregonian these were DeFazio's objections:
"he was bitterly opposed to how carbon allowances, which the owners receive for free and can sell in the market, are to be allocated. A late change in the bill took allocations from utilities that use renewable sources and hydro, like many in the Northwest, and gave them to utilities that burn coal. 'So you now have the most coal-friendly piece of legislation maybe in the history of Congress...It promotes the construction of a hundred new coal plants'...Moreover, DeFazio believes the bill will breed financial and ecological frauds..." He "wanted an amendment prohibiting any Wall Street financial firm, hedge fund or similar org. from trading carbon offsets. He didn't get it."
I hope some of this can be worked out in the Senate.
June 27, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, thanks. Just read the same article in The Oregonian that answered the question at least as far as DeFazio is concerned. I wonder if the Senate leadership will insist on voting on the same exact bill or roll the dice with a different piece of legislation/amendments and hope to improve on it, but then take their chances negotiating with their House counterparts. That is a pretty tenuous majority in the House as it now stands.
June 27, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess, and it's only that, is that a number of Democrats who considered the bill too weak were given permission to vote against it as long as there were enough votes to pass it. If so, that would be part of an arrangement whereby Democrats who were reluctant to support the bill for one reason or another might have agreed to vote in favor if their vote was needed, but were otherwise excused for voting against it. I'll add that Kucinich might be an exception, in that his self righteous intransigence may have distorted his understanding of the greater good.
June 28, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink