by Jim Tankersley
President Obama and a group of key House Democrats claimed a small victory today in their campaign to agree on a massive energy and global-warming bill, but they left a meeting at the White House with critical issues still unresolved.
The Democrats from the House Energy and Commerce Committee emerged from an hour-long discussion with Obama to announce that they had agreed to include a "cash for clunkers" provision in the energy bill currently moving through their committee.
That provision would essentially pay consumers to scrap older, less-efficient cars and buy newer, more efficient ones instead. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), a longtime champion of the auto industry, said the move "will result in hundreds of thousands of new vehicles being purchased across the country."
Committee leaders hailed the agreement as a blueprint for resolving the largest points of contention in the energy bill, including its sweeping attempt to limit the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists blame for global warming.
But they acknowledged that the most contentious points of the plan, including how to soften its economic blow on energy-producing states and the Rust Belt, remain in negotiation. They said the president told them he wants to act quickly on the bill, and that he's willing to give them wide berth to work out the details.
"He wants legislation," committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told reporters after the meeting. "He wants us to move as quickly as possible."
Obama repeatedly has pushed Congress to pass a so-called "cap and trade" program, which would set limits on greenhouse gas emissions and force power plants, factories and other major sources of those gases to obtain permits for their emissions.
The number of permits would decrease as the limits grow more strict, pushing emitters to use less energy and draw power from wind, solar, nuclear and other low-emission sources.
Democrats in the Energy and Commerce Committee, led by Waxman and Energy subcommittee chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), drafted an early version of a cap-and-trade bill this spring and held a marathon round of hearings on it late last month. Subcommittee members were scheduled to hash out key details of the bill this week and set the stage for a full committee vote by month's end.
But negotiations slowed, as several Democrats from states that depend heavily on manufacturing or fossil fuels questioned how hard the bill would hit their economies - and pushed for concessions to soften its blow. That could mean relaxing the emissions targets or giving emissions permits out for free to key industries, as opposed to auctioning the permits, as Obama's budget proposes.
Tuesday's meeting produced no agreement on those issues, though Waxman told reporters Obama gave the committee "a lot of latitude" on how to allocate permits. Markey said the president and committee Democrats are committed to resolve the issues "in a way that bridges ... regional issues."
Waxman also reaffirmed his desire to pass the bill from committee by Memorial Day - and to get it to the president's desk by the end of the year. Obama "didn't object" to that timetable, Waxman said, but did not explicitly request it, either.
Several committee members said Obama appealed to their sense of history, casting the energy bill and emissions limits as one of the great impacts they could have during their congressional careers. He promised to help sell the bill to voters, countering an aggressive push by Republicans to label the emissions limits as an energy tax because they would almost certainly result in higher energy costs.
The president also counseled members to emphasize the economy in framing the bill, particularly its ability to spur "green jobs" by increasing the competitiveness of renewable energy. "He felt that we should lead with the economy and green energy," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), "that when it comes to global warming, some people always get it."
Comments
"Democrats claimed a small victory today in their campaign to agree on a massive energy and global-warming bill"
Cue the flat earth wingnut global warming deniers in:
5...4...3..2..1..Ding Ding Ding!
Posted by: Hola | May 5, 2009 1:33 PM
Nice ride. Love the early 60's Dodge Bros. creations....... not!
Here is a confabulation that is nearly criminally ugly.
http://blog.cardomain.com/2009/04/22/whats-your-favorite-ugly-car/
Here's a bunch more. Note that M-Benz seems determined to destroy their own marque. Ugly beyond belief.
http://www.fuglyrides.com/
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 5, 2009 3:21 PM
When ugly was king, Chrysler ruled!
http://www.google.com/images?sa=3&q=picture+1959+chrysler+imperial&btnG=Search+images
Posted by: allajoke | May 5, 2009 3:25 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 5, 2009 3:21 PM
.
Oh yeah? Those cars aren’t half as as butt-ugly as Studebakers, like the ’50-51 Champions, Commanders, or Coupe Starlight (all with the bullet nose), the Studebaker Hawk (almost as ugly as an Edsel), or the Avanti (a mournful futuristic looking contraption). Now those are eyesores.
Posted by: John W. | May 5, 2009 4:12 PM
Great boost for the Tapxpayers subdised auto industry.
But will Americans buy American?
Posted by: Inky | May 5, 2009 5:40 PM
And are the taxpayers AGAIN supplying the ca$h for these clunkers?
Tired of the spending, tired of the democrats, tired of TAX (cap) and Spend (trade).
Oh, and let's not forget the $50,000,000 Obama wants for "national service"-that's the draft and for "non-profits"-ACORN.
Vote out the democrats in 2010 and 2012.
Posted by: spendthrifts | May 5, 2009 6:19 PM
Inky,
I've always had one Ford, sometimes two. But What is an American car?
Anywho, I just bought a new Henry last summer. Built in Michigan.
My prior 4 were all built at the south Chicago plant.
JW,
Check out the 48 Starlite Coupe. It was my Dad's first decent ride. I remember it well. Studebaker put out some handsome rides. In fact every one of them is a better looking ride than those horrible Dodge Bros.
Some great looking 50's cars would be the 57 CHevy, the 56 Crown Vicky.
http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1949.html
Now for some real butt ugly. So mundane it was called the cookie cutter car.
In fact, it's nearly impossible to say if it is a Buick, Chevy, Poncho, or your great grandfathers Olds.
http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Pictures-c18311-1989-Cutlass-Ciera.html
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 5, 2009 6:50 PM
Here's some nice rides. Enjoy.
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/larry-h-miller-auto-museum/785455/
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 5, 2009 6:52 PM
Ugly, ugly, I rest my case. Agree with cm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/unclegal/3187119562/
Posted by: OldCreaky | May 5, 2009 7:07 PM
John W,
I've got to take exception...
The Avanti is still being produced from the original Studebaker manufacturing equipment in Canada. The designer was Raymond Loewy, considered a leading designer of the 20thC.
www.avantimotors.com/
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | May 5, 2009 7:38 PM
Here's on of the best cars ever!
Note KB behind the wheel and John D and Terry hitch hiking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXVRdSbKDT8
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 5, 2009 9:03 PM
"Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick?!♬
YEEEEEECCCCHHHHHH!
http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Buick/1958_buick_century_caballero_estate_wagon_white_frt_qtr.jpg
Posted by: OldCreaky | May 5, 2009 9:20 PM
'OK, boys, lets make the finns stick out to the SIDES this year, and oh yeah, make the front and rear ends look even uglier!'
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1079237788028694718YuTOrA
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 5, 2009 9:58 PM
Creaky,
Nothing wrong with that pink beauty that a little more chrome wouldn't fix.
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 6, 2009 8:00 AM
Sure, make fun of old cars that aren't your taste. You guys aren't getting it.
This story isn't about old cars, and it's not really about "global warming" either. It's about MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL of how you think and what you do. Politicians are like the pulsing brains in that old Star Trek episode: "Right thinking will be rewarded. Wrong thinking will be punished."
Some of us like driving old cars. Some of us like smoking. Some of us like keeping ferrets as pets. (I'm not talking about myself here, just making a point.) Why should the government, who by rights should be doing nothing more than filling potholes and funding the Army, tell any of us how to behave? And yet these sorts of bills keep coming, year after year after year.
There's a reason 36 cents of every gallon of gas goes to state and local taxes. There's a reason New York has over $3 tax on every pack of cigarettes. There's a reason liquor is taxed up the wazoo. It's to get you to modify your behavior and stop using those things.
Well, I say "quit it." Get the government out of our lives! And let's start by doing away with lousy legislation like this.
Posted by: All Mankind | May 6, 2009 8:47 AM
If car design was terrorism, this pile of scat would be the head terrorist!
http://www.caranddriver.com/car/pontiac-aztek-pictures/pontiac-aztek2.html
Well, Mankind, somebody here isn't getting it.
Posted by: The LeninSisters | May 6, 2009 11:48 AM
All Mankind,
Hey, I love classic cars, even the ugly ones.
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 6, 2009 12:08 PM
"Why should the government, who by rights should be doing nothing more than filling potholes and funding the Army, tell any of us how to behave? And yet these sorts of bills keep coming, year after year after year."
A M,
Because, 'promote the general welfare' is in the Preamble to the Constitution, right along with providing for the national defense and filling pot holes.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 6, 2009 12:12 PM
I couldn't have said it better All Mankind!
Just another way the government can control the masses, and another step towards removing that pesky pursuit of happiness and freedom of choice!
The logic behind this is so ill conceived, I can't even put my thoughts into words.
These politicians never look beyond the surface of an idea, to link together cause and effect down the road.
I side with the line of thinking that driving a used car, no matter how much gas it uses, or how much comes out the tail pipe is more environmentally friendly and than building a new car.
The amount of energy used to scrap a car in order to make a new one falls in the negative column.
From the tow truck that tows the so called "clunker" to the scrap yard, to the transportation of the new vehicle to the dealer. Resources that otherwise would not have been touched are eaten up.
Posted by: Dale | May 6, 2009 2:36 PM
Here's my favorite mean machine:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2140622/fast_school_bus_drag_racing/
Posted by: allajoke | May 6, 2009 6:36 PM
"John W" Said....
QUOTE: "Oh yeah? Those cars aren’t half as as butt-ugly as Studebakers, like the ’50-51 Champions, Commanders, or Coupe Starlight (all with the bullet nose), the Studebaker Hawk (almost as ugly as an Edsel), or the Avanti (a mournful futuristic looking contraption). Now those are eyesores." UNQUOTE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I got a flash for you Mr Know-it-all John. I own one of those bulletnose, Starlight coupe Studebakers that you're putting down and your opinion happens to be in the strictest of minorities. When I have my bulletnose at ANY/EVERY car show, MY car is where most people make a bee line, directly to it. It ALWAYS has a big crowd around it in a sea of brand-x iron. I've NEVER had a bad comment about my car.
Also, if the moderator wouldn't reject this post, I'd tell exactly where you could put your offensive comments and opinions! I got your "butt ugly"....
BTW, for all others, the Avanti is NOT being made anywhere, period...
Posted by: Sonny | June 23, 2009 12:52 AM
Program is over, done with, not enough money, What a joke this president and his czars are. Please, when will they go away, Can't wait.
Posted by: chicamom | July 30, 2009 11:19 PM