So Close and Yet…
It has taken nearly all of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman's energies and patience the last five months to finally get to the point this week where he thinks he has enough support from conservative Dems on his own committee to pass sweeping climate change legislation. Enter Colin Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, who is claiming jurisdiction over the bill and demanding his own markup. Peterson is unhappy with several parts of the bill from the creation of a carbon derivatives market (“Um, credit default swaps?” he told reporters in the Speakers Lobby today), to provisions that he says will destroy the ethanol markets to the carbon credit allocations which he says will unfairly impact rural consumers.
And it looks like Peterson is going to get his whack at the bill. Though leadership had sought to protect the measure from changes that could provoke more enemies than friends, it looks like the legislation will now be marked up in several committees. “I think the bill will be referred to [the Agriculture] Committee, it'll be referred to Ways and Means, I think International Relations,” Waxman said Thursday. “There are number of committees that have peripheral jurisdictions and that's the way the legislative process works. We'll have to talk through what changes are going to be made.”
In all there are eight committees that have jurisdiction over the bill. Some don't expect a big fight: Ways & Means always planned a mark up, though the chairman of that committee, Charlie Rangel, has previously said he didn't envision many changes from Waxman's version. Not so with Agriculture. And satisfying Peterson, who says he has 45 Dems who will vote with him, is essential to getting the bill to the House floor. Now the challenge will be which committees go first and figuring out what the final bill will look like will be the equivalent to playing three-dimensional chess. The multiple mark ups throw a wrench in the leadership's hopes for a fast tracked bill through the House. But, as Peterson noted, his committee is hardly the largest hurdle. “These enivros come out of the urban areas and create this urban dominated bill – this stuff is going no place in the Senate” where rural areas have much more powerful representation than in the House, Peterson said. “That's something that no one ever talks about. They can do whatever they want in the House but I'll guarantee you it won't pass the Senate.”
-
1
Thanks a pantload, Rep. Peterson. Glad you're so interested in solving the problem, instead of worrying about whose gavel is the biggest.
.
J N-S – any bones you might throw us on anything that is likely to be in the bill? -
2
Colin is the Bluest of the Blue Dogs. A complete pain.
-
3
P-nnto:
I thought that was the case. It always worries me when a Democratic representative refers to the members of his own party in the third person.
-
4
What about the legislation itself, JNS? Do we need to tackle carbon emissions? Is the legislation up to that task? Do Peterson's comlaints have any merit?
.
Or is this all just abstract theater with no effect whatsoever on the non-political world? -
5
Well? You wrote three monster paragraphs on this topic, surely you have something to say about the legislation itself.
-
6
"Those ignorant hippies at MIT have just published their new revised climate change projections in some crazy socialist peer-reviewed scientific journal, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate. As Joe Romm summarizes, they're projecting 5.1℃ average warming by 2095, with 12℃ at the poles and 866 ppm of CO2. (Via Kevin Drum.) That's double their 2003 estimates, and it's well above the catastrophic 450 ppm level and ultra-catastrophic 700 ppm limits people often refer to when they're talking about the upper bound humanity can afford."
~
Matt Steinglass, excerpts at the Dish:
~
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/countering-manzi.html#more -
7
David Roberts at Grist (Time won't let me post the link for some reason):
~
"Those who have turned against the bill think there will be one chance to do this; they cite the Clean Air Act to show how crappy compromises get cemented in place in legislation and become very, very difficult to reopen. They're worried that if a weak bill is put in place, by the time the country seriously revisits it it could well be too late. It blows the one chance."
~
Sounds a lot like the health care reform debate, or Krug's view of the banking crisis doesn't it? -
8
I don't know why you all are getting so upset about all this - it's just a political game, after all, and we'll all be dead anyway, so who cares?
-
9
Speaking of "So close and yet...."
The guy's name is spelled Collin.
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- How to Outsmart a Debt Collector
- Best of the Decade: Gadgets
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Suspect Headley: Pakistani Terrorist Group Going Global?
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late













RSS