Colin Peterson on the Waxman-Markey Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:03:55 AM PDT

During the House debate, the bill was introduced into the House Energy & Commerce committee (chaired by Waxman, whose name is on the bill) and was substantially weakened before passing out of that committee. Then Collin Peterson got his environment-hating claws on it, and he worked out a compromise that allowed the bill to pass the full House. In the end, Peterson voted FOR the bill but many Ag committee members did not. It was in the aftermath of that that he went on the radio show AgriTalk on July 2.

Peterson said that he was happy with what he accomplished but it was not a perfect bill. He thinks that the Senate will water it down quite a bit more because rural states each have 2 Senators, just like the more urban states do, and therefore rural areas have more power in the Senate compared to the House. He said that perhaps the global warming part of the bill will be entirely dropped in the Senate, leaving us with a bill that only deals with energy (and added that that wouldn't "hurt [his] feelings" if it happened).

He said that if you asked him a month ago whether the bill would go to the President's desk by the end of the year, he would have said no. But now he's not so sure. He also said that if the current House version of the bill was going to be voted into law, he'd vote no. That's pretty significant. The bill only passed by 7 votes, so he is basically saying that it would NOT pass in its current form if it was the final vote to send it to the President.

Probably the most interesting point he made was that a recent court ruling decided that the EPA had to regulate carbon as it was a health hazard. Therefore, if Congress does NOTHING, the EPA is going to regulate carbon no matter what. The bill will essentially stop the EPA from doing whatever they would do on their own and instead give them specific instructions based on whatever Congress wants. It sounds to me like the environment would be better off if the EPA were left in charge and if Congress kept its nose out of it, but the risk is that we'll have a future President like George W. Bush who appoints, say, a coal lobbyist (or similar) to head the EPA. In that case, it will be nice to have a law in place from Congress that sets the rules for carbon regulation. Peterson, of course, is very much opposed to leaving the EPA in charge.

In other words, he admitted his own weakness here. He can hold up this bill all he wants, but in the end, ANY bill is going to be better (to him) than letting the EPA decide how to regulate carbon on its own. So really, Peterson's in a bad place to negotiate from. It's amazing that they let him have so much power so far. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I'd say "Fine Collin. Then we'll have no bill and the EPA will regulate carbon. How will you like that. You won't? OK, well here's the alternative. You play by my rules."

The most amazing part of the interview was towards the end, when Peterson said that he has grandchildren, and this bill is for his grandchildren. He had expressed interest in eliminating the need for Middle Eastern oil as a national security measure, so is that what he is doing for his grandchildren? Or does he actually see a need to save the planet? For most of the interview he spoke about how much he wanted to throw a wrench in any and all efforts to help the environment. If that's what he thinks he's doing for his grandkids, well, that's not a very grandfatherly thing to do.