While the Obama transition team starts assembling the pieces of his administration, one of D.C.'s most intriguing subplots is unfolding: the contest between Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) for chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees clean air, global warming, and other critical environmental legislation.
Last week the Washington Post reported that Dingell is rallying friendly K Street lobbyists in an effort to fend off Waxman and hold on to his chairmanship. And so the corporate propaganda now ham-fistedly attempts to portray Waxman as less effective at building consensus on effective legislation.
I've had a ringside seat for more than three decades -- as a reporter and later an environmental analyst -- watching these two lawmakers in action. It seems like only yesterday (in fact it was 1982) that I penned "Tailpipe Johnny" for The New Republic, an account of how Dingell joined forces with the anti-environmental Ronald Reagan administration in an effort to weaken the Clean Air Act on behalf of car companies and other special interests. Fortunately for the breathing public, Waxman and a large majority of the House Democrats beat back that assault.
Throughout the ensuing decades, it's been Waxman who sought clean air and other environmental solutions. The result has been a strong law that has brought us cleaner air while strengthening the economy. If Waxman had not prevailed on so many issues over Dingell, pollution in this country would undoubtedly be worse today.
Even after the Democrats regained a majority in the current Congress, we soon were reminded of the saying about old dogs and new tricks. Soon after the Supreme Court ruled (in the case Massachusetts v. EPA) that the EPA had authority to control global warming emissions from cars, Dingell circulated a draft plan to overturn the court decision.
Hearkening back to his antics of the early '80s, Dingell's proposal risked fracturing the new Democratic majority, which hoped to reverse the anti-environmental policies of the previous Congress.
Dingell was effective at one thing -- his actions prompted immediate opposition from governors from California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont protested as well. These states would later supply nearly 60 percent of the electoral votes to elect Barack Obama. Needless to say, environmental groups ranging from the League of Conservation Voters to Defenders of Wildlife also opposed Dingell's draft.
Fortunately, Waxman stood up in opposition to Dingell's plan, and the Michigan Democrat backed down -- for a little while. On October 7, 2008, Dingell released new draft climate legislation which confirmed that he remains both consistent and persistent. This draft also would repeal the Supreme Court case, however that action is presented as an "option" that the committee chairman can choose later in the legislative process. No wonder Duke Energy and other big polluters immediately hailed the Dingell plan.
While Dingell has remained focused on his parochial issues, Waxman has carefully developed principles for climate legislation that are supported by a majority of the House Democratic caucus.
As he did with clean air in the 1980s, Dingell has bucked the Democratic caucus on other environmental issues as well. For instance, in August now-Senator-elect Tom Udall offered an amendment to increase the share of electricity from renewable energy. While 85 percent of Democrats voted for the amendment at the urging of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Dingell voted against it.
Renewable energy, of course, is widely supported throughout the nation. Twenty-six states plus Washington, D.C. have adopted renewable electricity standards. (The map of these states looks a lot like Obama's electoral map.) In fact, they gave Obama 272 electoral votes, or 75 percent of his total. Renewable electricity, of course, is a key element of Obama's energy plan. A new Zogby poll shows that more than 3 in 4 voters -- 78 percent -- believe investing in clean energy is important to revitalizing America's economy.
Ultimately, the battle for this key chairmanship will be decided by the Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Waxman has been one of the most consistently effective members of Congress on the issues I monitor. You just have to hope that polluter lobbyists don't cloud the issue with a toxic smog of misinformation.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
tommybasil Posted 12:53 am
11 Nov 2008
I have read countless blogs from journalists who claim to be progressive, supporting Waxman's attempt to remove Dingell from his seat as the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Apparently, it is now progressive to care about the environment and not care about people who need jobs and health care.
Waxman, 69, (and not exactly a hot young newcomer to Washington) represents one of the wealthiest districts in the country. Dingell represents a blue collar working class Detroit area; he has not been anti-environment, he has been pro jobs. It is very easy to sit in a wealthy district in California and talk only about the environment without even mentioning job loss or health care.
When legislation is drafted that will put standards on an industry that will result in massive job loss for a constituency, as a congressman, you have an obligation to vote against that legislation. Dingell has voted against some environmental bills, he has also drafted the clean air legislation that passed. In fact, Dingell recently received a 100 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters.
But, calling out Dingell's record and pointing to two or three times in the man's 50 year history in the House where he did not support the environment is typical elitists' tactics. We all know that politics is about compromising and sometimes voting for or against a bill despite its unrelated and added contents. This is elitist because it assumes those of us reading these over simplified articles do not understand how the voting system works.
If you want to play the game of record then bring it on. Every single year that Dingell has been in congress he has introduced a bill for universal health care. Congressman Dingell is in favor of energy standards, but not at the result of massive job loss.
Green Manufacturing is the answer. Being discussed in Michigan now is the concept of moving the massive industrial assets toward green manufacturing. The answer is not setting high standards on the automotive industry, these standards will not be followed and the production and consumption of cars will plummet. The answer is to create new jobs and industry that creates green and viable alternative energies.
I am a Leftist, I believe people need jobs, health care and a green future. Waxman does not seem to see past the green veil that there is more to progress than just the environment.
Permalink
Bill Hewitt Posted 11:58 am
11 Nov 2008
Permalink
MikePress Posted 1:05 pm
11 Nov 2008
anti-environment over his career, he has at times proven to be
anti-innovation. The greatest economic growth correlates closely with the
times of great innovation. And while I also agree that green manufacturing
represents a significant part of the answer, big industry should not dictate the terms of innovation to suite their own pace--a route John Dingell oftentimes prefers.
For a timely example, let us turn to the automobile industry. Remember that one of the primary reasons that they have been hemorrhaging jobs is their failure to innovate along with the times, thanks largely to one John Dingell. Keep in mind the auto companies have cut thousands of jobs over the last two decades while continuing to fight any progress on efficiency standards including opportunities as recently as last year. Only recently, after over 50 years in Congress and thousands of jobs lost did John Dingell concede even a modest compromise pushing the auto industry to get with the times.
Bottom line is, when the federal government tried to act on fuel efficiency for
cars and trucks, John Dingell constantly stood in the way. Now states are
trying to act and John Dingell is standing in the way. His lack of
vision helped pave the destructive path leading to the current auto crisis.
Now the auto industry wants a no-strings bailout without any conditions for green innovation or increased fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. While we can hope that Chairman Dingell helps steer this money towards helping the auto companies retool their practices to create more efficient cars and trucks in order to preserve jobs here in the
US, such a result is doubtful. We would have no such worries with Henry Waxman at the helm.
Dealing effectively with the climate crisis will require innovation across all sectors
of the economy. John Dingell is far more likely to try to protect the coal
industry that has been losing jobs for years despite the fact that any number of metrics show that coal provides fewer jobs than solar and wind. If we have learned
anything during this election season, it is that good judgment is just as
important, if not more so, than experience. Henry Waxman has consistently
proven to have both, while Dingell can only ever guarantee one of the two.
It's time for a change.
Henry Waxman has a vision more in line with the needs of our time. He will
be the leader we need on the most pressing issues we face. I for one
certainly hope he wins the Chairmanship so we can finally get to work.
Permalink