"We've just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we've ever had. They're saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it's going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that's a good thing since they'll be able to grow more corn."
He said this in spite of the fact that the projected warming would be disastrous for corn pollination, and hence, yield. Worse, he says so in spite of the fact that global warming is going to engender a lot of local flooding in many of the world's farming regions.
Scratch that. Global warming is, right now, already increasing flooding in many areas, as it is projected to do in Peterson's Minnesota, as well as the districts and states of many other staunch opponents of getting this country on the path to carbon neutrality. A taste ...
In a previous post, I wrote about how the coal industry got its way with ACES, the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Much of their victory had to do with sharply limiting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose chartered purpose is to protect the environment, and therefore, public health.
The agribusiness industry won a similar victory. When Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair of the House Agriculture Committee and point person for an alliance of rural and coal state Democrats seeking to weaken the bill, put his foot down and said, "I'm pretty sure that any role for EPA in agriculture is a deal breaker."
Rep. Peterson's main complaint about the first draft of ACES, and what seemed to be the general complaint of the House Agriculture Committee, was that the legislation didn't give farmers enough money for things they were already doing. Throw more money at us based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, he said, or no deal.
House leadership took Peterson at his word. Like, for example, this word:
The past year has revealed a comprehensive philosophy of government championed by conservatives and moderates when they oppose major progressive economic reforms. I call it "crime and reward." The philosophy is summed up as follows:
The flaw in progressive legislative proposals is that they don't give enough money to the corporations that caused the problem(s) which overall legislative effort is supposedly trying to solve.
It applies in all major cases. Check it out:
The way to lower health care costs is to give companies that have increased health care costs even more money: As Olympia Snowe and many others have articulated, the problem with a public option is that it lowers the cost of health insurance rather than increasing the amount of money private health insurers generate in revenue. While one would think that the purpose of health care reform legislation is to lower the price of health insurance, it appears that for many the purpose is actually to make sure that the companies ratcheting up health care costs receive even more money from the process (ie, through mandates to buy their over-priced insurance and no lower priced, public option).
The way to fix climate change is to give the companies that are the main cause of climate change even more money: As Collin Peterson and Claire McCaskill have articulated, the problem with climate change legislation is that it doesn't give enough money to the energy and agricultural conglomerates that are primarily responsible for global warming.
The way to fix the financial crisis is to give the financial institutions that caused the financial crisis even more money: This one is pretty straightforward and has been covered extensively. From the Wall Street bailout program itself, to making sure that Congress doesn't pass laws restricting executive bonuses out fear that financial institutions won't take our money, the government's solution to fixing the financial crisis is to give the people and companies that caused the financial crisis even more money. The progressive alternative, temporary nationalization, should be opposed because it wouldn't make enough money for shareholders.
On the three major areas of public policy that were addressed by the federal government over the last twelve months--health care, climate change, financial crisis--the "moderate" solution has consistently been to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the corporations that caused climate change, the financial crisis, and skyrocketing health care costs. It is a crime and reward ideology. When powerful private sector companies cause major national and global problems, the "moderate" solution is to give those who caused the problem hundreds of billions of dollars.
Crime and reward. Through a conservative-moderate alliance, it is the system of government under which we live, even in the era of the Democratic trifecta.
... A good number of people have told me in the past few days that major environmental organization[s are] actively working against strengthening amendments to the bill, stating that those groups are fearful that any actual strengthening will keep the bill from being passed. ...
I've certainly been hearing the same things, including that if the bill fails, progressives (both elected representatives and non-profits) will personally get blamed for any mouthing off they do now. (Don't get me started on the fabulists who're saying that it'll be easier once the Senate gets hold of this.)
... Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who has made known that he has enough votes to derail the Speaker's priority legislation if agricultural provisions aren't changed, said he spoke with Pelosi "for a while" and that it was "cordial."
"She's not putting any pressure on me," Peterson said. "She knows where I'm coming from." ...
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Tuesday surrendered to agriculture interests on a key provision in the massive climate and energy bill he introduced with Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Facing a defection from farm-state Democrats, Politico.com reports that Waxman agreed to change the bill so that "the U.S. Department of Agriculture will oversee the [carbon] offset program for farmers, and the House will seek further guidance from the Obama administration about the appropriate role for the EPA."
Politico further reported that Waxman "agreed to ask the EPA to roll back its new requirements that farmers offset rural land developed in other countries."
Peterson had already won other concessions, including additional emission allowances for rural electric cooperatives. Further, the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions had already been removed in this bill, and now they don't get to determine agriculture carbon offsets either.
Here are some questions to ponder based on this latest news:
How many Senators will be in the Gang to water down the climate change bill? When it comes to passing major legislation, the Senate is always over-run by gangs. For example, a Gang of 18 removed $96 billion in spending from the stimulus, and the famous Gang of 14 preserved the filibuster.
The question is not "if" there will be a Senate Gang--that much is guaranteed. The real question is how many members the Gang will have, and how much more they want to concede.
How much better is Collin Peterson on climate change than Peter DeFazio? Collin Peterson now says that he will vote for the climate change bill. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) says that he won't, because the bill doesn't do enough. The League of Conservation Voters has said that it will not endorse any member of Congress who votes against the bill. As such, another pressing question is: how much of a better climate change activist is Collin Peterson than Peter DeFazio?
Snark aside, this is precisely why green groups need to b drawing lines in the sand on the contents of the bill, rather than just its passage. Otherwise, gang bangers like Collin Peterson just end up getting whatever concessions they want. And the same thing will happen in the Senate--only much, much worse because of the 60-votte rule.
Further, rather than focusing exclusively on passage, it is a demonstration of why green groups should primarily be going after those who try to weaken the bill, like Collin Peterson, and reward those who try to strengthen the bill. According to the viewpoint that passing anything is what matters most, Collin Peterson is now a better climate change activist than Peter DeFazio. Those who fight to make the bill better don't matter at all.
A deal has been nearly reached on the climate change bill:
House Democratic leaders late last night released a revamped, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill (pdf), clearing the way for floor debate Friday even though it remains uncertain if they will have the votes to pass it.
The House bill posted on the Rules Committee Web site has grown from the 946-page version adopted last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sources on and off Capitol Hill said the bulk of the changes largely reflect requests from the eight other committees that also had jurisdiction over the bill, including the Ways and Means Committee and Science and Technology Committee.
While environmental groups and climate change activists have repeatedly vowed that the bill needs to be strengthened, no amendments will be allowed on the floor debate that will actually allow the bill to be strengthened. Instead, the backroom deal means that coal and agribusiness get their concessions, but there isn't even a chance for green groups to try and make the bill better. Everything will be thrown together in a single manager's amendment:
Sponsors expect to draft a manager's amendment later this week that reflects additional deals reached among lawmakers, according to several House Democratic aides.
And if you want to know what the final language of the bill is before it is voted on, good luck with that. Not only is the bill already 1,201 pages, but the deal hasn't even been finalized:
Democrats are still not done wheeling and dealing as they gear up for a floor debate, with critical issues still unresolved on everything from biofuels to which federal agency -- U.S. EPA or the Agriculture Department -- will have lead oversight of the offset program that would pay for environmentally friendly land management practices.
So, you don't get to know what is in the bill until it is too late. Further, you get no chances to improve the bill. Yet further, Collin Peterson and his corporate interests get pretty much everything they want.
Without a hardline group of progressives willing to join with Republicans and defeat Democratic legislation unless that legislation meets certain progressive criteria, every legislative fight will follow this process of backroom deals with corporate interests resulting in an inexorable right-wing slide. Further, this group of progressives, which I call a Progressive Block (and yes, the "k" is intentional), needs to publicly draw clear lines in the sand long before draft legislation is introduced. Such public announcements allow the netroots and grassroots to help organize around the line in the sand. Otherwise, given the backroom nature of these dealings, there is no way for the progressive activist base to play any meaningful role in the legislative process, and all negotiation power is ceded to corproate lobbyists.
We either have the Progressive Block, which continues to give us leverage in the health care fight, or we have this disastrous climate change bill path where already weakened legislation gets dominated by Collin Peterson. The choice is ours.
At the start of what will inevitably be another week where much of progressive media focuses on Stupid Things Republicans Said, Paul Krugman takes time out to point to the real problem: "centrist Democrats." Here are the key graphs from Krugman, plus links to recent articles by Nate Silver discussing public support for the public option and health insurance industry donations to members of Congress:
The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by "centrist" Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around "centrist," by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.
What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives, would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.(...)
Honestly, I don't know what these Democrats are trying to achieve. Yes, some of the balking senators receive large campaign contributions from the medical-industrial complex - but who in politics doesn't? If I had to guess, I'd say that what's really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America.
But this fantasy can't be allowed to stand in the way of giving America the health care reform it needs. This time, the alleged center must not hold.
It is hard to argue with Krugman's read here. The desire to play kingmaker must be overwhelming for many Democrats. For example, on the climate change bill, Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson has received dozens of long feature articles on his "kingmaker" role on the climate change bill. However, he has received little to no pushback from environmental groups, while being showered in effusive praise from Speaker Pelosi:
House Democrats still lack agreement on key details of a comprehensive global warming and energy bill despite intervention from several top Obama administration officials, diminishing the chances that the measure will pass off the floor this week before the start of the Fourth of July recess.(...)
"Everything is going great," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told E&E on Friday. "It's the legislative process. It's going great, and I feel good about it all. We're going to reach our goals. And it's pretty exciting as a matter of fact. I'm really very excited about the Democratic response. It's been very, very positive. And Collin and Mr. Waxman and other chairs have worked very constructively to bring us to a good place."(...)
Peterson, who forged a close relationship with Pelosi during last year's farm bill negotiations, has been in constant contact with the House speaker on the global warming legislation. "She wants the farmers' concerns to be addressed," Peterson told reporters last week. "And she wants them to be on board with what we're doing."
Being a centrist Democrat who holds up Democratic legislation is a great deal. You get fawning press, huge amounts of power, no pushback from timid progressive advocacy groups and, once severely weakened legislation is finally passed, tons of credit for saving the world from climate change dirty fuc*ing hippies. Because really, in the end, the goal of legislation is to save it from DFHs, rather than to solve any problems.
With progressive media focused on the latest episode of Stupid Things Republicans Said, why wouldn't any Democrat want to become conservative kingmaker?
On Friday, Prairie Overload Collin Peterson declared that negotiations over the climate change bill had "blown up." From Grist:
On Friday, Roll Call reported that Peterson says the talks "blew up last night" over the issue of offsets. It appears the bill authors offered an option of setting aside money a new greenhouse gas conservation program tied to an offsets program, but Peterson and other Ag Dems rejected it.(...)
"I'm tired of this running around in circles," he added (which is probably what everyone involved in this issue is thinking these days).
Peterson has threatened to vote against the Waxman-Markey bill and pledged no votes from all the other 26 Democrats on his committee if these changes aren't made. It's not entirely clear what Peterson would be willing to agree to, or just how much the bill's authors would be willing to give him. A deal was expected to be announced on Friday, according to a source close to the negotiations. But given the late hour, that's not looking very likely at this point.
Great, just great. At this point, lacking a Progressive Block on the issue, passing a climate change bill appears to require appeasing Collin Peterson and his gang, The Weather Dominators the House Agricultural Committee.
So, what is Tom Friedman's "indispensable" (now there is a ringing endorsement I'd put in large text at the top of my blog) climate change blogger doing? Writing long articles comparing House Republicans to his two-year old daughter.
Memo to Joe Romm, who writes Climate Progress: Republicans are not the problem right now when it comes to passing your beloved Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Collin Peterson is the problem. Attack him, for crying out frakking loud.
It is all very cute and tempting to attack Republicans. After the last eight, or really fourteen, years, it has become reflexive for almost everyone advocating for progressive causes. However, we need to start getting it through our collective heads that the political reality has changed. Conservative Democrats, ineffective Democratic leadership, and timid progressive advocacy organizations are the problem.
Self-proclaimed political realists like Joe Romm need to start waking up and placing their venom where it belongs. He hasn't even mentioned the stalled negotiations on the climate change bill, even though the announcement took place more than two days ago. Has Romm become a denier of political reality?
Even beyond the specific case of climate change, this is a general Stop with the irrelevant attacks on irrelevant Republicans. Political reality no longer has anything to do with Republicans. Repeat after me: conservative Democrats, ineffective Democratic leadership, and timid progressive advocacy organizations are the problem now.
Over the past few days, I have been writing about how there has been little to no response to Peterson's actions from climate change activists and organizations (see here and here). Now, yesterday's 4-page New York Times spread on Peterson (yes, he is earning quite the power, media, and lavish praise for doing the bidding of evil) explains why. Environmental groups hate Peterson, but have no idea how to apply pressure to him:
"He's tough -- he doesn't always get the value of conservation," said one environmental lobbyist who did not want to be named because of ongoing negotiations with the Agriculture Committee. "His policy and heart and soul are all in supporting big ag."(...)
Environmentalists that were at odds with him on some issues said they could find no effective way to pressure him -- that attempts to do so would often just send him in the opposite direction.
OK--this finally makes sense. Environmental groups are aware of Peterson. They hate Peterson. They are trying to fight Peterson behind the scenes, even. However, they have no idea how to use public pressure on Peterson to influence his actions.
Admittedly, figuring out a strategy to pressure Peterson requires some difficult and unconventional choices. A conservative, ten-term Democrat from an R+5 district with no media market is a tricky case, especially when he is completely in the service of Big Ag. However, it is still doable for any non-partisan group that is willing to play real hardball. And, if there is any member of the House with whom we need to play real hardball right now, it is Collin Peteron.
(Warning: What I write below will freak out many Democrats. However, from the perspective of a non-partisan advocacy group, it is a viable solution to dealing with the specific case of Collin Peterson. Further, that many people would freak out at even the suggestion of this idea is probably one of the reasons why environmental groups have no response to Peterson's ongoing efforts to water down the ACES).
Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson has been holding up the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation in order to further water it down. For a while, Peterson was just looking for more cash for abribusiness, to further weaken the EPA's authority to regulate carbon. Now, he is upping the ante:
Since Memorial Day, Peterson has stood in the way of quick passage of the legislation sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), demanding changes to a number of provisions he views as harmful to the agriculture community.
Now Peterson, who because of his demands has gotten himself face-time with Waxman, Markey and Pelosi, is being approached by Democrats beyond his committee who are eager to take advantage of his access to the top Democrats.
"Now an even bigger impediment to the bill than agriculture is the electricity allowances," Peterson explained on Tuesday, citing another of the measure's provisions.
Peterson said the Waxman-Markey formula for distributing allowances to electricity producers heavily favors populous states over rural ones, meaning rural-state consumers may face a disproportionately high increase on their utility bills compared with consumers in urban areas.
Curious to see what was being done about Peterson escalating his attempts to water down the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, I went over to the League of Conservation Voters website. Here is what I found:
On the front page of their website, the LCV features a TV ad urging people to call Congress, and asking them to "strengthen and pass" the climate bill. That's good. The bill does need to be strengthened.
However, there is absolutely no information on the LCV website about Collin Peterson's obstructionist efforts. They have no press releases on the subject. There isn't a single blog post mentioning either Collin Peterson or the Agriculture Committee.
So, the LCV wants to strengthen the climate change bill, but isn't taking any public action-or even making any public mention-of Collin Peterson's ongoing, and escalating, efforts to weaken it. Further, this public blackout on Collin Peterson is made all the more strange since, more than four years ago, the LCV named Collin Peterson to its "dirty dozen" list, and vowed to take action against him:
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the national political voice of the environmental and conservation community, today named Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN) to its 2004 "Dirty Dozen" list. PetersonÆs record shows a blatant bias toward corporate polluters and special interests over Minnesota families.
"Rep. Collin Peterson has repeatedly voted to let corporate polluters off the hook, earning a place on our æDirty DozenÆ list," said LCV Senior Vice President for Political Affairs Mark Longabaugh. "We plan to let North Star state voters know about Rep. PetersonÆs record of siding with special interests over Minnesota families."
Given this, why is the LCV apparently doing nothing to Collin Peterson as he is escalating his efforts to weaken the most important piece of environmental legislation in decades?
As I wrote on Monday morning, there is a bizarre lack of public condemnation from climate change activists and organizations when it comes to Democrats, like Collin Peterson, who are currently weakening Waxman-Markey (the American Clean Energy and Security Act). Why aren't green groups doing anything about Collin Peterson's attempts to weaken the American Clean Energy and Security Act? I thought we were supposed to be strengthening the climate change bill, not putting our hands in our pockets while Collin Peterson watered it down further.
If someone can show me an action that some green group--any green group--is taking against Collin Peterson, maybe we can start using that as a rallying cry. Until then, it seems like we are in the middle of a greenout.
Along with about a dozen other bloggers, I had an opportunity to meet with former President Bill Clinton in his New York offices today (apologies for the content delay created by my presence at the meeting). During this time, I was able to ask him about the Agriculture Committee holding up the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.
In regards to the committee's attempts to have the USDA determine who receives carbon offset credits, President Clinton said that "too many carbon offsets have nothing to do with agriculture" for the USDA to become the appropriate regulatory agency. He added that "it's not the right thing to do. Keep it in the EPA."
President Clinton did note that Chairman Peterson, like many of the Democrats on the committee, comes from a conservative and rural district. However, making the USDA the regulatory authority is something that "not even the coal industry" would support.
Further, toward the end of the meeting--which covered a wide range of topics--President Clinton told the assembled bloggers that one of the best things they could do for elected Democrats is to function as a "counterveiling" source of progressive pressure. That is, he encouraged us to offer left-wing criticism of Democrats on key policy areas, and that we should urge our leaders and elected officials to favor further reaching, more community-focused public policy. In fact, he indicated that he would have wanted more such progressive media pushing him during his time in office.
Additionally, President Clinton told the assembled bloggers that they should focus their pressure in a "sophisticated" pattern, focusing specifically on members of Congress who could be the most influenced. By this, he meant Democrats in safe blue districts afraid of primary challenges, and members of both parties in districts that could be swung in the next general election. He also indicated that he believed this was the start of anew progressive era in the federal government--the first since the mid-1960's--and was hopeful that major progressive agenda items on health care and climate change would pass as a result.
****
I have to say, it all made sense to me. Hopefully, the climate change activists, media figures and organizations who have stayed surprisingly quiet about the Agriculture Committee hijacking the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation will take this advice.
And no, I am not making this up. President Bill Clinton really said this all to me, and other assembled bloggers, today. The other attendees, and soon to be released photos, will be able to verify that this took place and that all my quotes are accurate.
I know it is surprising, but this did really happen. He isn't very Villagerish, even if he is a bit hesitant to call himself left-wing. He certainly seems to welcome left-wing criticism directed at him personally, becuase it he believes it provides him room to break away from the Village. That might explain why the Village hated him so much during the 1990's.
Last year, Blue Dog Leonard Boswell received a left-wing primary challenge from former state Representative Ed Fallon. Boswell's central, and perhaps only, message to left-wing and new media-focused Democrats was his endorsement by Al Gore. Desmoinesdem explained at the time:
Accompanying these messages, Boswell's campaign has made sure to remind Iowa Democrats that Al Gore supports Boswell, whereas Fallon supported Ralph Nader for president in 2000. A photo of Al and Tipper Gore, along with a letter from Gore endorsing Boswell, are prominently displayed on the front page of the Boswell campaign's website.(...)
Last Thursday another glossy mailer from the Boswell campaign arrived in my mailbox. This one focused on Gore's endorsement of Boswell, with a large photo and a letter from the former vice-president. Here is an excerpt from that piece (all bolded passages were bold in the original):
Leonard Boswell, a remarkable congressman and my friend, is facing a serious primary challenge.
Whether the issue is global warming or increasing the minimum wage, making college more affordable or expanding health care to every American, Leonard Boswell is on the front lines of these issues, working hard for Iowans every day.
Democrats and Republicans on the committee took turns criticizing the legislation. Their chief complaint is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, rather than the U.S. Department of Agriculture, would be in a charge of the credit program through which farmers could get paid for practices that store crop residue in the soil or otherwise reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"As this bill stands today, I can't vote for it," Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia., told Vilsack. "I don't know of anyone else in the committee who can."
Al Gore is arguing that the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation has "the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s." Now, Leonard Boswell, along with seemingly all other Democrats on the Agriculture Committee, is hijacking climate change legislation unless it removes the EPA's authority to determine carbon offsets. Note that this is already on top of the bill's provision to eliminate the EPA's ability to regulate carbon itself, which is actually a step backward for climate change regulation in the Unites states.
The reason I bring is up is that, whenever groups like Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace criticize Waxman-Markey for not going far enough, they are immediately smacked down by bloggers like Joe Romm at Climate Progress for failing to offer up "politically realistic" alternatives. However, if this is all about political realism, then why are we seeing the following from Al Gore and Climate Progress in response to the Agriculture Committee's actions:
Al Gore has not made a single public statement about either Leonard Boswell or the Agriculture Committee, despite what they are currently doing to Waxman-Markey.. This is even though Boswell largely owes his position in Congress to Al Gore. One might think that political realists would use this past support to try and influence Boswell in some manner.
Climate Progress have never even mentioned Leonard Boswell once for the more than three years of their existence
according to Google. In fact, Climate Progress has never directly attacked the actions of the Agriculture Committee in the same way that it has repeatedly, and sometimes viciously, attacked environmental groups that criticize of the bill from the left. All Climate Progress is doing about the Agriculture Committee's actions is putting up articles declaring that the House will pass the bill, and a guest post very politely telling farmers why it would be super swell if they supported global warming legislation.
As such, here is my message for the self-proclaimed political realists who are supporters of Waxman-Markey:
The Democrats on the Agriculture Committee are probably, as a group, the most electorally vulnerable Democrats on any House committee. Some of the Democratic members of this committee, like Leonard Boswell, owe their continuing presence in Congress to people like Al Gore, and certainly to hundreds of progressive donors who would be upset about what Agriculture Committee Democrats are currently doing to climate change legislation. As such, either start directly attacking these vulnerable Democrats in progressive media and Democratic fundraising circles for what they are doing to Waxman-Markey, or stop priding yourself on your political realism.
If Waxman-Markey really is so unbelievably awesome, as both Al Gore and Climate Progress keep arguing, then we should be doing everything possible to pass it. Instead, Al Gore and Climate Progress seem to be giving the Democrats on the Agriculture Committee a free pass on significantly watering down the bill. I have no idea this is happening, but it certainly isn't because they are using all available, politically realistic means to pass Waxman-Markey.
Start playing some hardball, or stop telling us that we are about to get the best climate change bill politically possible.
The House Agriculture Committee is threatening to hold up the climate change bill unless the USDA, rather than the EPA, is granted oversight of the bill's proposed carbon credit program:
Democrats and Republicans on the committee took turns criticizing the legislation. Their chief complaint is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, rather than the U.S. Department of Agriculture, would be in a charge of the credit program through which farmers could get paid for practices that store crop residue in the soil or otherwise reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"As this bill stands today, I can't vote for it," Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia., told Vilsack. "I don't know of anyone else in the committee who can."
While Democrats threatening to block climate change legislation may seem frustrating to progressives, there is a refreshing aspect to what the Agriculture Committee is doing here. Rather than making some vague ideological argument or stating they will never support the bill no matter what, Committee Chair Collin Peterson has made it clear that the committee members were actually just looking for a payoff in their districts (more in the extended entry):
Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson is simply awful.
Collin Peterson, chairman of the House of Representatives agricultural committee, says the farm sector that raises organic produce and grass-fed beef for local consumers needs little federal help. 'It is growing, and it has nothing to do with the government, and that is good,' he told the FT. 'For whatever reason, people are willing to pay two or three times as much for something that says 'organic' or 'local'. Far be it from me to understand what that's about, but that's reality. And if people are dumb enough to pay that much then hallelujah.'"
The district has a strong Republican PVI (+13), but it's not a traditional Republican district. It's very rural Minnesota, a place where ethnic loyalties are incredibly strong and there are still Scandinavian accents. People in Peterson's district think that taxes are too low, and are exceptionally populist in that one world model that fears the NAFTA Superhighway.
Peterson is the reason the Farm Bill is going to subsidize agribusiness and cut out money for conservation (way to go Democratic Congress!). The sustainable agricultural community, as far as I can tell, isn't organized in any sort of union with people like me who like tasty food and will pay higher prices so I don't get poisoned and don't have to emit as much carbon. I go to Farmer's Markets and the producers there are progressive, but they tend to talk like conservatives. They hate government regulations, which basically just punish small farmers who want to grow and sell high quality foods, and tend to distrust and dislike the political system.
Agribusiness has driven a truck through this wedge for fifty years now, but I get the sense that with some real organizing, the small farms could really have a big impact. It's not just that the farms are growing sustainable food without subsidies and against a hostile regulatory structure and growing their business, it's also that more progressive solutions on energy and land use policies will help these farms and their communities as well.
Meanwhile, if anyone has lived in Peterson's district and knows the DFLers around there, let me know.
"Probably not many of us here [are going to the PETA alternative, but] there are probably better looking girls there." - Rep. Collin Peterson, July 18th, 2007, in remarks to the House Agriculture Committee as he called for a break before going to the American Meat Institute's annual Hot Dog Lunch for members of Congress. PETA hands out veggie dogs as a counter-event.
Washington, D.C. - "A sound compromise that no one is satisfied with, but nevertheless represents real reform." - From Rep. Collin Peterson's (D-MN) opening statement today on the 2007 Farm Bill.
The first House Agriculture Committee markup session on the 2007 Farm Bill began with Rep. Collin Peterson's opening statement, followed by everyone else's. Peterson said that Americans were fortunate to enjoy low, stable food prices, and food that meets the highest standards of quality and safety.
No markup, or voting on specific amendments, actually took place during today's session. The last changes to the legislation weren't made until late last night, and today was the first chance most members got to see the final versions, though Rep. Peterson said that the changes were minor in comparison to the version released a little over a week ago.
Natasha flagged a Post piece from yesterday looking at Dem disagreements in the week of the full House committee markup of the farm bill:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) have told Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) that they will not support a "status quo" bill.
AgSec Johanns agrees. And
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, complained that the bill would provide $465 million in new money over five years to support fruit and vegetable growers.
"That's not even a crumb," he told reporters, adding that unless improvements are made the bill will face a battle on the House floor.
