Democrat vs Democrat:

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

House chair says he has votes to torpedo Pelosi-backed bill

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said on Thursday that he has the votes to take down Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) climate change bill.

Peterson’s boast comes as Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman has backed off on his desire to have his bill go straight to the floor. Waxman told reporters Thursday afternoon that he expects the bill to go to Peterson’s committee, as well as to the Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs committees, for additional markups.

Democrats on the Agriculture panel, seriously concerned about a number of provisions in Waxman’s measure that they say will wreak havoc on their communities and industries, said on Wednesday that they have agreed to band together against the final bill if their concerns aren’t addressed.

But in addition to the 25 or so “no” votes from his own committee, Peterson on Wednesday said he has another 15 to 20 “no” votes, largely from members who also represent rural areas.

“I think we’ve got 40-45 votes,” Peterson said.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has made passing a major climate change bill a signature goal of her speakership, needs to minimize defection, because most Republicans are expected to vote no when it hits the House floor. Pelosi so far has deferred to Waxman on the issue, but clearly had her hand in the decision to allow other committees to mark up the massive bill.

“At some point it could become an issue where the leadership has to deal with these issues in order to get enough votes to pass it,” Peterson said. “But if they don’t want to change it, they’ll have to find the votes some other place.”

A number of Southern-state conservative Democrats — as well as vulnerable members of the caucus — have been openly cool to the Waxman climate change bill.

“This has such an effect on all of our constituents,” said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. “I think a lot of Democrats are uncommitted.”

The issues most inflaming the angst of rural-area Democrats include: ethanol production and use provisions; definitions of renewable fuels; land allocation issues; regional utility emission credits; and even how the Environmental Protection Agency defines greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuel sources.

Peterson has been jockeying for a chance to mark up whatever bill comes out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but even that won’t solve the entire problem, as a number of the issues most concerning to Agriculture Democrats aren’t directly relevant to the committee’s jurisdiction, the chairman explained.

“A lot of that is not our jurisdiction anyway,” Peterson said. “That’s part of the problem. They screwed this stuff up in another committee and we’ve been trying to fix it and haven’t been able to.”

The Hill reported on Thursday that Peterson threatened House leaders to either give him a role in shaping the climate change bill or risk losing every Democratic vote on his committee.

Waxman has said he is committed to working with all of the other committee chairmen to address whatever issues they may have with the bill. And Democratic leaders, perhaps anticipating the amount of time that will be necessary to strike additional deals across a spectrum of committees, have suggested that it may take until July for a climate change bill to hit the House floor.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) waded into the mix on Wednesday, telling reporters that his panel will take up the climate change measure, but possibly after the committee marks up a healthcare bill — which hasn’t even been introduced yet.

Peterson, though, is so far the only senior Democrat threatening to scuttle the bill, which at press time appeared to be on its way to being approved by Waxman’s panel.

While Peterson and Waxman have not yet hashed out their policy differences personally, there appears to be no ill will between the two. Waxman and Energy and Environment subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have said their primary focus at the moment is to get the bill out of their own committee.

Asked about Peterson’s vote count on Thursday, Markey pressed his hands together and said: “Just let us get through this markup first, please?”

Peterson said he understood that rationale.

“I know what he’s got to deal with,” Peterson said. “I dealt with the Farm Bill.”

At the same time, Peterson pulled no punches in describing how he believes issues relating to farm-state members went ignored up until now.

“This is an urban-dominated bill,” Peterson said. “These enviros come out of these urban areas and they have no clue what’s going on.”

Although there are plenty of farm-state and rural-district Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee — some of whom have the same concerns as Peterson and his panel’s Democrats — Waxman has been able to assuage enough of their concerns to get most, if not all, of his members to support the bill in committee this week.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-...2009-05-21.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

“A lot of that is not our jurisdiction anyway,” Peterson said. “That’s part of the problem. They screwed this stuff up in another committee and we’ve been trying to fix it and haven’t been able to.”

The Hill reported on Thursday that Peterson threatened House leaders to either give him a role in shaping the climate change bill or risk losing every Democratic vote on his committee.

When you try and force through a controversal bill like this one, without involving the other party, you risk losing Democrats along the way. This is what happens when "feel good" legislation comes face to face with the pragmatic concerns of the folks that it will effect the most.