|
Dems clash on climate bill |
|
By Jim Snyder and Jonathan E. Kaplan
|
|
Posted: 06/08/07 07:40 PM [ET] |
Divisions among Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee may doom an early effort to combat global warming and develop homegrown alternative fuels.
A dozen committee Democrats have sent a letter to panel Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Energy and Air Quality subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) saying a bill the two members drafted contained several “harmful policies.”
Specifically, the attacked the bill for pushing development of coal as a transportation fuel, despite concerns that doing so would raise greenhouse gas emissions, and for not increasing fuel mileage standards for cars and trucks aggressively enough.
Members also said they opposed language that would preempt states in forcing reductions in tailpipe emissions and overturn a Supreme Court ruling that found the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
“We have serious concerns about the direction in which the committee is currently heading and must strongly oppose the draft legislation that has been circulated,” the lawmakers wrote.
“We urge you to rethink your approach and produce a bill that will help address the serious threat of global warming and reduce the nation’s dependence on oil.”
The sharply worded letter highlights the challenges Democrats face even within their own caucus as they try to craft a bill that addresses the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas production and lessening dependence on foreign oil.
As members of the minority, Democrats often took Republicans to task for not doing much on either front. Now in the majority, Democratic leaders have to balance the competing demands of oil-patch members whose energy-producing districts could be hurt by tough global warming measures with the more liberal elements of the party that want to use new majority powers to push strict environmental protections.
The House bill focuses on the development of alternative fuels, which could lower greenhouse gas production. It is to be married on the House floor in the near future with other measures that address the power grid and energy efficiency.
A broader bill to cap carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions won’t be released until the fall, committee leaders have said.
The members do not say in the letter that they would vote against the bill unless it is reworked. But if they do join the 25 Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, they could prevent the bill moving forward.
During an Energy and Air Quality subcommittee hearing on the bill yesterday, several Democrats said they would seek to amend the measure during a scheduled markup next week.
Bill opponents include Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the second-ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee behind Dingell. In challenging the chairman, Waxman may be reprising an earlier role as foil to the powerful auto industry ally on environmental bills. The two often butted heads over an effort to update clean-air laws the last time Democrats held the majority, although in the end they found a compromise that won broad floor support.
“They had some pretty colossal struggles, but ultimately were able to move things along,” said Gerry Sikorski, a Holland and Knight lobbyist who as a Democratic congressman served on committees with both Waxman and Dingell.
Members who signed the letter tried to downplay suggestions of a lasting rift, saying disagreement wasn’t surprising given the complexities surrounding the debate over global warming and energy security.
“This is a major league [economic] transition that won’t happen without creative tensions,” said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).
“People were unhappy with what was happening. Democrats are in the majority, there are responsibilities to try to get consensus,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D) of New York.
The other members who signed the letter were Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Tom Allen (Maine), Anthony Weiner (N.Y.), Albert Wynn (Md.) and Californians Anna Eshoo, Lois Capps and Hilda Solis.
Dingell has said the draft bill moves Congress closer to the goal of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill did receive some support during the subcommittee hearing yesterday.
Alan Reuther, legislative director for the United Auto Workers, said the auto union “strongly supports” the bill because it “would promote our nation’s energy security, while addressing the pressing problem of climate change.”
The bill would also “help to protect and expand jobs for American workers,” Reuther said in written testimony.
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the group supported several provisions in the bill, although he expressed wariness over some of the mandates for fuel efficiency and production of so-called “flex-fuel” vehicles that can run on ethanol-heavy fuel mixes.
Democrats who signed the letter noted a number of areas where the bill comes up short. They urged, for example, greater promotion of renewable sources of electricity, which without “proper federal requirements could languish under-utilized.”
The members also said that automakers already have the technology to make cars and trucks much more efficient than current mileage standards require.
|
