Related Resources On NationalJournal.com National Journal Insiders Poll: Fuel-Efficiency Standards (6/30/07) · Poll Track: 2007 Polling On The Environment · Poll Track: 2007 Polling On Congressional Leaders · Social Studies: "Turning Lights Down, And Profits Up" (4/20/07) · Wealth Of Nations: "Global Warming: Winners And Losers" (3/30/07) · National Journal Cover Story: "Not If, But When" (2/17/07) · National Journal Cover Story: "A Changed Climate" (1/27/07) · National Journal: "Gavels Turn Green" (11/18/06) · National Journal: "Dingell's Towering 50 Years On The Hill" (12/17/05) [an error occurred while processing this directive] Additional Resources On The Web House Energy And Commerce Committee Statement On Energy Legislation Markup (6/29/07) · Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Statement On CAFE Standards (6/7/07) [PDF] · The Union Of Concerned Scientists On "Clean Vehicles" ·

By Richard E. Cohen, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, July 20, 2007

As Congress was departing for the July Fourth recess, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pulled out all the stops to tout energy legislation assembled by 11 House committees. Surrounded by the committee chairmen, Pelosi unveiled what she called the "Energy Independence Day" bill at a June 28 press conference. "In the tradition of our Founding Fathers and in the interest of our children and our grandchildren, we begin a new American revolution," she proclaimed. "We Democrats declare America's independence from foreign oil."

Although the legislative package -- aimed at encouraging renewable energy production, increasing energy efficiency, and spurring new energy technologies -- is relatively modest, the speaker was just as effusive the next day at a recess send-off briefing with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It is innovative. It's groundbreaking. It's cutting-edge. It's about the future," she said of the House's bill. "It has the enthusiastic support of the chairmen and the leadership, and it's pretty exciting." And then Pelosi added, "We're not finished."

Not finished indeed. As the House prepares to debate the energy legislation within the next two weeks, the focus has shifted to a major issue that, at least so far, is not part of the package: raising the corporate average fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. The energy bill that the Senate approved on June 21 by a 65-27 vote unexpectedly included the first increase in CAFE standards since 1975. But standing in the way in the House is venerable Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., who, along with his allies in the U.S. auto industry and its unions, fiercely opposes the Senate plan.

Pelosi has endorsed the Senate-passed provision boosting CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon, from the current average of roughly 25, by 2020. She has signaled that she is eager for House action, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has predicted that the energy bill that Congress sends to President Bush will include higher fuel standards. Moreover, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a leading environmentalist and a close Pelosi ally, has introduced an accelerated version that would require the 35 mpg standard sooner, by 2018.

Markey -- who chairs the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee that Pelosi created earlier this year, much to Dingell's consternation -- has 149 co-sponsors and the support of many environmental groups. He told reporters during a July 10 conference call that he wants to "make sure that the energy package contains strong fuel-economy language," and added, "Now is the time to deal with it, during this summer."

Dingell, for his part, derided the Senate's CAFE plan in a July 8 C-SPAN interview as "a little bit delusionary." He also repeated his earlier criticism of Markey's select committee as "about as useful as feathers on a fish." And, in a sign that Dingell may try to capitalize on Democratic divisions on energy policy, he threw his support behind an alternative CAFE proposal backed by a leading centrist "Blue Dog," Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., that would raise federal requirements to 35 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for light trucks by 2022.

A showdown between Pelosi and Dingell, longtime bitter adversaries, seems at this point to be a matter of when, not if. Pelosi could still take steps to force House debate on CAFE standards before the August recess. Or with Democratic insiders conceding that they face a challenge in securing 218 votes to pass an ambitious measure, Pelosi and Hoyer have raised the possibility that they will punt the issue until House and Senate conferees meet to resolve differences on the energy bill-with or without Dingell's help.

In yet another option, the CAFE showdown could be postponed until the fall, when the House acts on a second, more challenging energy bill to address global warming. Key players have suggested that action on the initial energy bill may be delayed in the meantime and that the two measures eventually might be combined. Such scenarios, of course, raise the question of whether Bush would sign any energy legislation from the Democratic-controlled Congress -- either a stripped-down version or a more sweeping plan.

For now, lawmakers -- not to mention eager environmental activists and nervous industry lobbyists -- are on the edge of their seats as they watch this summertime melodrama. No one is quite sure how all of the machinations will play out, and the stakes are high. The energy debate not only threatens to demolish congressional Democrats' carefully crafted unity. It is also unfolding against a backdrop of limited legislative accomplishments and tanking public approval ratings for the majority party.

Democrats want a big domestic victory -- particularly with gasoline prices exceeding $3 a gallon -- and Reid suggested during his June 29 press conference with Pelosi that they will get one. "We are going to work out whatever differences we have with CAFE standards. CAFE standards will be raised. The American people are demanding that," he said. "I'm confident that the majority of the House also favors raising CAFE standards."

House members, including those on Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee, express uncertainty but some cautious optimism. "I hope that we can resolve it in a cooperative way" between Pelosi and Dingell, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who sits on the committee and is also on Pelosi's leadership team. "It should have been done a long time ago."

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., another panel member, acknowledged the "many policy differences" between Pelosi and Dingell, but added, "We all have a stake in governing. They ultimately will find common ground, and each can get 80 percent of what they want." Likewise, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., contended, "As Democrats, we recognize that we will have to work out our internal differences." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., a close friend and ally of Pelosi's and also an Energy and Commerce member, said, "Big things take a lot of work."

In the early going on the energy bill, Pelosi was assertive in putting Dingell in his place. During a meeting last month with committee chairmen in her conference room at the Capitol, the speaker issued an edict -- reinforced by objections from Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and other liberals on the Energy and Commerce Committee -- demanding the removal of two controversial provisions that Dingell sought to include in the package.

One provision would have pre-empted states that seek to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles. (Pelosi's home state of California last year enacted landmark legislation [PDF], joining 11 others that have taken comparable action.) The other measure was designed to override this year's Supreme Court decision [PDF] that gave the Environmental Protection Agency direct authority to combat global warming.

"I have never seen a speaker take such an active and forceful role on policy," Waxman said in recounting the session. "Tip O'Neill or Tom Foley would not have told John Dingell or Dan Rostenkowski not to report out a bill, or what kind of bill to report out of committee.... [Dingell] was shocked by her action. That was a dramatic meeting."

"The speaker of the House said [global warming] would be an important issue for Democrats," Waxman added. "It's hard to know what [Dingell] was thinking. Committees should be the leaders on policy. But a chairman can't ignore the views of the speaker and leadership."

Reining In Chairmen

For nearly a half-century, House Democratic leaders and rank-and-file members have struggled to demand accountability from their often-independent committee chairmen.

In 1961, President Kennedy joined forces with Speaker Sam Rayburn, D-Texas, in a fierce fight to expand the membership of the Rules Committee, where Chairman Howard Smith, D-Va., had thwarted the party's agenda. Then in 1966, when the chairmanship of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee (now Energy and Commerce) opened up, Democrats denied the post to Rep. John Bell Williams, D-Miss., who had been the most senior member but was stripped of his seniority because he had backed Republican Barry Goldwater for president in 1964.

After the 1974 post-Watergate election, the huge class of freshman Democrats unseated four Southern Democratic committee chairmen who were aging and largely unresponsive to members. "These actions eliminated some of the worst abuses with chairmen who were autocratic in running their committees," said Scott Lilly, a former top aide to Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who is now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "But independence remained, and grew again over time."

In the early 1990s, Lilly recalled, the reform-oriented Democratic Study Group created a task force-of which Pelosi was a junior member-that unanimously reported that committee chairmen "were too independent and unresponsive to [Democratic] Caucus directives."

For the past 12 years, of course, no Democrats chaired House committees. But they observed closely as Republican leaders clipped the wings of their chairmen and centralized authority under speakers Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. Democrats saw some benefits, particularly as GOP leaders succeeded in passing much of their legislative agenda. But many Democrats ultimately concluded, according to Lilly, that "overcentralization can be a worse problem than undercentralization," especially in weakening the prerogatives and expertise of the committee system and undermining competing viewpoints.

After Democrats regained the majority in November, Pelosi made it clear that they would not return to their earlier regime in which many chairmen were autonomous barons. Democratic leaders have also cited their narrow majority to justify the need for more party discipline, although they say they want to avoid the Republicans' top-down excesses. "We are in a hybrid phase," said a veteran House Democratic leadership aide. "We don't order the chairmen, but we have told them that they hold their position because of the caucus.... The speaker is the leader of the caucus."

From the beginning, Pelosi underscored that she wouldn't hesitate to pull the chairmen back. She bypassed two veteran members whom she viewed as problematic and instead selected the less experienced Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, to chair the Permanent Select Intelligence Committee; she stifled impeachment talk by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.; she made it clear that she preferred Waxman rather than Dingell to take the lead on oversight issues; and she discouraged a turf grab by Dingell against Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. Still, Pelosi got a blunt reminder of the limits of her power when a majority of the committee chairmen backed Hoyer for majority leader last November over her candidate, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

Although the energy bill has been her most dramatic confrontation with a committee chairman, it's hardly the only instance in which Pelosi has sought to influence legislation. Her highest-profile initiative has been the attempt to set deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In the lengthy battle this spring, she secured support from most House Democrats, but was forced to concede on war funding after her side fell 62 votes short of overriding Bush's veto.

More typical have been Pelosi's backroom efforts to resolve domestic policy differences within her famously fractious caucus. She held a series of "listening sessions" last month to get the views of virtually all House Democrats on immigration legislation; she led meetings among senior Democrats that ultimately yielded to Republican demands for transparency on earmarks in appropriations bills; and she encouraged a controversial proposal by Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., to shift farm policy from its traditional support for commodity prices and higher production.

"Nobody should be surprised that she's not a laissez-faire speaker," Kind said. "With Nancy's intellect and energy, it's unrealistic to expect her to be laid back in the development of policy."

Fighting the Old Bull
Dingell has been the House's most independent committee chairman this year, but the strains between him and Pelosi go way back. In 2001, Dingell chaired Hoyer's campaign against Pelosi for the minority whip post. She returned the favor when she endorsed Democratic Rep. Lynn Rivers in an unsuccessful 2002 primary clash against Dingell that was forced by redistricting. Each of the adversaries clearly has a long memory.

In January, Pelosi sought to restrain Dingell by creating the select global-warming panel, which she heralded as a tool to focus attention on the issue and help achieve her paramount legislative goal. Not surprisingly, Dingell strongly asserted his prerogatives. Even though Pelosi said in announcing the panel that it would not have legislative authority, CongressDaily reported that many saw the move as a shot at Dingell and "a move to consolidate power in the speaker's office."

Although the 81-year-old Dingell, who earlier led Energy and Commerce for 14 years, has been slowed by several ailments, he still revels in his prowess as chairman. House members and outside observers give him mixed reviews.

In a recent flattering profile, Time called Dingell "smart enough, strong enough, mean enough," and speculated that "he may be the insider able to drive change." But Los Angeles Times Washington-based columnist Ronald Brownstein later in June wrote that Dingell is "far from the party's mainstream on energy and the environment controls." And Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby this month termed Dingell "an obstacle ... who misguidedly believes he knows how to defend his carmaker constituents."

Publicly, Pelosi and Dingell are respectful of each other. Her allies and senior aides emphasize her efforts to seek common ground. Although they reject any suggestion that the speaker is heavy-handed, they don't deny her willingness to impose her views. "Nancy Pelosi clearly is more activist than other Democratic speakers," said spokesman Brendan Daly. "She has a vision of what she wants to get done. She works closely with House chairmen to achieve consensus, but at the end of the day, it's their legislation."

After her stern warning on the scope of energy legislation during her June meeting with the committee chairmen, Pelosi appeared to prevail. Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. -- a key Dingell ally and chairman of the panel's Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee -- wrote in a June 18 letter to Energy and Commerce members that they had deferred the regulatory and other controversial issues until later this year, when the committee plans to consider the broader global-warming legislation.

"This will also give us the needed time to achieve consensus on these issues, if at all possible," they wrote. But other well-placed Democratic sources said that Pelosi is unlikely to change her views on restricting regulators.

In an interview, Boucher acknowledged the conflicts between Pelosi and Dingell but sought to emphasize areas of agreement. "She is a very hands-on speaker. She is familiar in detail with the substance of legislation in committees, and she wants to be kept informed," Boucher said. "We [at Energy and Commerce] are writing the legislation. But she is setting the agenda, and wants to be briefed. That is helpful for us."

Republican leaders, for their part, mostly dismiss Pelosi's handling of what they call the "no-energy" energy bill, which they say illustrates her scant legislative successes this year. Democrats "have punted on the big issues with regard to energy and global climate change," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, as he lamented the missed opportunities for bipartisanship. "There is a real crisis in leadership.... Nothing is getting accomplished."

Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that few House Republicans would support a CAFE increase similar to the Senate measure, and he predicted that "if the bill goes to him, the president would veto it."

Finding common ground on the CAFE standards is no easy task. Although the differences between the leading proposals might seem minor -- they are only a few years different in implementation dates, or a few miles per gallon apart -- the failure of Congress to increase these standards in more than three decades, even as other nations have done so, demonstrates the challenge.

Environmental groups contend that the Senate-passed energy bill requiring 35 mpg by 2020 -- and, for that matter, Markey's goal of implementation by 2018 -- are technologically achievable and would prove economically beneficial. "For consumers, the cost of the new technology would more than pay for itself," said a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. If the nation reached a 35-mpg fleetwide average by 2018, the group said, "in 2020, we would cut our national oil use by 1.6 million barrels per day."

But in a battle in which both sides have intensified their rhetoric, the auto industry and its allies contend that the reformers have sought to go too far and too fast. In a July 15 statement, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger wrote that Markey's "extreme CAFE proposal would impose huge costs on domestic manufacturers, but a far lower burden on foreign-based companies, which have a different vehicle mix." The more-limited CAFE proposal being pushed by the Blue Dogs' Hill, by contrast, would continue the distinction between domestic and foreign car fleets and consequently protect "production and jobs in the U.S.," Gettelfinger said.

Turning Up the Heat
When the Senate passed its energy bill in June, only four Democrats -- including both senators from Michigan -- voted no. But the prospects for divisions on energy legislation are greater among House Democrats. Hill has secured vital support for his CAFE proposal from two fellow Blue Dogs, Reps. John Barrow, D-Ga., and Mike Ross, D-Ark., both of whom serve with him on Energy and Commerce. "I want to craft something that people can live with," he said. "And it won't cost American jobs."

Other moderate House Democrats joined a June 27 press conference where they unveiled a "well-rounded" energy package that called for more domestic energy production and challenged environmentalists' dogma. "We want to be the voice of reason in this debate," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, another Blue Dog. John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, hailed their package as a welcome "break from the usual rhetoric."

Boucher represents a major coal-producing district. As he moves forward on the complex greenhouse-gas proposal that he expects Energy and Commerce to approve in September, Boucher hopes to include a plan to expand the use of coal-based liquid fuels -- a provision that environmental groups have strongly opposed.

Boucher emphasized that the fall legislation will be challenging. To be successful, he said, "it will be bipartisan, industry-supported, with no dislocation for a sector of the economy, and it will have costs." Although he cautioned that he had not discussed the scheduling with Pelosi, he said he expects that higher fuel-efficiency standards will be part of that bill. "The first bill is easy by comparison," he said. With Pelosi's agreement, he noted, he has sought Republican ideas for the second measure because "it cannot pass without bipartisanship."

The liberal Waxman agreed with the need for bipartisanship on the global-warming measure. And, like Boucher, he said that he wants Energy and Commerce to draft the legislation. But he cautioned, "It would be unwise for our committee to report a bill without the needed tools, or [one that] didn't meet the laugh test," including steps to reduce carbon emissions.

As the debate goes on, Pelosi has invested a major stake in the outcome. But Dingell still holds some cards: his decades of legislative savvy, and a committee -- and chamber -- where the ideological splits give him a chance to prevail.

Already, Dingell has taken a shot at Pelosi by downplaying the prospect that Congress will take bold action on global warming. During the July 8 C-SPAN interview, he said cynically that he would propose a steep tax on carbon emissions, including a 50-cents-per-gallon gas tax, "just to sort of see how people really feel about this."

Plenty more vitriol lies ahead. "You can expect creative tensions, with stops and starts," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., an Energy and Commerce member who co-authored an upcoming book on steps to reduce greenhouse gases. But Inslee was confident that major policy changes will move forward. He credited Pelosi for being "bold and accurate, and very committed to this."

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Need A Reprint Of This Article?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.