Who Runs Gov

“Will America ‘go green’? As the health care debate winds down, it’s the next hot question around Washington. Here at WhoRunsGov, we want to take you behind the scenes to map out who is lobbying Congress on climate change.

Over the next two weeks, we’re running a project to profile about a dozen of the most prominent environmental lobbyists. If this peaks your interest (and we hope it does), go check out our project page. With your help, we can shed light on who the interest groups are, what they want, and how effective they might be.

We’re also joining with our partners over at NewsTrust to find the best journalism out there on the climate lobby. To do so, they’re calling on their members to find and rate reporting on the environmental lobby. Anyone can help, so if you’d like to join go here.

Questions? Shoot me an email at ericksona@washpost.com.

The House made history this weekend when they voted to pass a comprehensive health-reform bill by the slim margin of 220 to 215, with the Blue Dogs split nearly down the middle.

According to the official tally, 28 Blue Dogs voted to pass the legislation and 24 voted against it. Those who voted against reform tended to be, as you’d expect. from more conservative districts. While all of the Blue Dogs from California and Indiana voted in favor of passing the bill, contingents from states like Pennsylvania and Georgia were split.

Of the Blue Dog leaders, only Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) voted for the bill, while Reps. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), Charlie Melancon (D-La.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), voted against it.

Herseth-Sandlin released a statement to explain her concern about “effect of the House bill on the nation’s long-term deficit, and more specifically, its failure to start bringing down the deficit and health-care costs in the long term.”

It’s worth poiting out that Blue Dogs weren’t the only Democrats to vote against reform. Fifteen non-Dogs also voted agiant the measure, some saying the bill was too conservative for their tastes, making the total number of Dems to cross the aisle 39. The Wall Street Journal has a good analysis, and the New York Times made a chart!

Here’s the full list of how Blue Dogs voted:

BLUE  DOG “AYES”:
Mike Arcuri (D-N.Y.)
Joe Baca (D-Calif.)
Marion Berry (D-Ark.)
Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)
Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa)
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.)
Christopher Carney (D-Penn.)
Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)
Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (D-Penn.)
Donnelly, Joe (D-Ind.)
Ellsworth, Brad (D-Ind.)
Giffords, Gabrielle (D-Ariz.)
Harman, Jane (D-Calif.)
Hill, Baron (D-Ind.)
Michaud, Mike (D-Maine)
Mitchell, Harry (D-Ariz.)
Moore, Dennis (D-Kan.)
Murphy, Patrick (D-Penn.)
Pomeroy, Earl (D-N.D.)
Salazar, John (D-Colo.)
Sanchez, Loretta (D-Calif.)
Schiff, Adam (D-Calif.)
David Scott (D-Ga.)
Zack Space (D-Ohio)
Mike Thompson (D-Calif.)
Charles Wilson (D-Ohio)

BLUE DOG “NOES”:
Jason Altmire (D-Penn.)
John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Dan Boren(D-Okla.)
Allen Boyd (D-Flo.)
Bobby Bright (D-Ala.)
Ben Chandler (D-Ky.)
Travis Childers (D-Miss.)
Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.)
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.)
Parker Griffith (D-Ala.)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.)
Tim Holden (D-Penn.)
Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-Md.)
Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.)
Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)
James D. Matheson (D-Utah)
Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Walt Minnick (D-Idaho)
Glenn Nye (D-Va.) 
Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Heath Shuler (D-N.C.)
John Tanner (D-Tenn.)
Gene Taylor (D-Miss.)

We’re coming down to the wire on the House’s vote on health care, and it’s still not totally clear how the Blue Dogs will vote. Right now, Rep. Nancy Pelosi is trying to sure up every vote she can in anticipation of a weekend vote on the bill. Waiting any longer, the thinking goes, will only give the Blue Dogs and other Democrats on the fence more time to decide they don’t support the legislation.

Right now, the hot issue is whether the bill will lead to government-funded abortions. Currently, the legislation would allow plans offered through new insurance exchanges to cover abortion services as long as firewalls prevented federal subsidies from covering the cost. A compromise measure by Blue Dog Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) would “require federal health officials operating the public insurance plan created in the House bill to hire a private contractor to pay abortion providers.” This has so far not satisfied Democrats who oppose abortion.

The other big problem is the question of covering immigrants. Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) told The Washington Post that in order to support the bill, he needed to be able to reassure his constituents that people “who are here illegally cannot avail themselves of the infrastructure that we’re creating.” Leaders may tighten the language on illegal immigrants so that it’s as tight as the Senate language.

The Blue Dogs had a couple of conditions for signing on to the health care bill. The big one, you probably remember, was convincing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that public option rates should not be tied to Medicare. But there’s another, less-covered piece that Blue Dogs wanted. The measure would create the Institute of Health to put together recommendations for reducing costs in areas with high Medicare spending. It would also reward places where costs are lowest.

Blue Dogger Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) said in a statement that “this agreement rewards states like Iowa who have put patients and their care first.” The loser will be urban hospitals, which are usually in districts of more liberal representatives.

As you can imagine, this isn’t sitting well with health executives in places like New York, who argue that their services cost more because they are serving a poorer population with a greater range of health care risks. “Unless we deal with the problems of poverty in underserved areas, health care will be expensive in urban areas,” Dr. Kenneth L. Davis, chief executive at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, told the New York Times.

Many more rural districts treat less people and slightly more affluent populations, which New Yorkers say accounts for the differences in spending. Another words, this measure helps places where Blue Dogs hail from, like the west and midwest.

This idea isn’t in the Senate bill, and it’s unclear whether it will be added to the final legislation. But it’s definitely something to watch.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure Blue Dogs vote for health-care reform.

With what seemed like half the House crowded behind her at the podium, Pelosi announced the bill that will be debated on the House floor would include a public option, but a version more acceptable to the moderate Democrats. The full text of the bill is here.

Why? Pelosi needed their votes.

As our Greg Sargent first reported, Pelosi had barely 200 of the 218 votes she’d need for a more “robust” public option.

That “robust” public option was what progressives would have preferred . It would have paid doctors and hospitals based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are the lowest in the industry. Instead, Pelosi chose to include a public option in which the government would have to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, which means they’ll end up paying them more than with the “robust” option.

It’s the outcome Blue Dogs wanted, especially those from rural areas. They said Medicare, which pays hospitals based on cost-of-living in their area, was already reimbursing doctors and hospitals far too little, and they worried that rural hospitals would not survive if the public option paid at Medicare rates.

This will make it harder for moderate Democrats to vote against the bill, and Pelosi needs only a handful of the 56 Blue Dogs on board to get a bill through the House.