The Executive isn't the only branch of government ordering up moving vans. A good number of long time members of Congress have retired, and of course there will be turnovers in seats as a result of this past Tuesday's election. Add to that the fact that President-elect Obama is likely to tap several current members of both the House and Senate to serve in his Administration. Rahm Emanuel, who just won reelection to the House before being tapped as Obama's Chief of Staff, is just the first to leave an option seat behind him. So there will be some jockeying for positions going on over the next month or two.
But another trend (okay, not sure if it's a trend, or a couple of cases) is the removal or attempted removal of some of the older members from their vaunted positions of power on various committees. I had noticed this early on and then this morning saw this article on the Politico web site: No Congress for Old Men.
Mainly the article deals with two high profile cases. After serving on the Senate Appropriations Committee for 50 years, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has voluntarily stepped down from his chairmanship. Voluntary is a relative term in government, and it was clear that he would be forced out if he didn't opt to do so willingly. At 90+ years old, it was time to release the chairmanship to someone who can more effectively run the Committee. This is arguably the most important committee in the Senate since it handles the money...No appropriations, no program (even if the program exists on paper). I'm not sure who will take over as chair, though there are quite a few well known names serving on the committee, most of whom are returning for the next Congress (though there are a few others that have either retired or been defeated [or in the case of Ted Stevens, might still win his election only to be forced out]).
The other big case pits one of the most vocal liberal members of the Democratic party (Rep. Henry Waxman of California) against one of the venerable and powerful chairs of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Rep. John Dingell of Michigan). This particular power struggle is fascinating and has potentially major ramifications for future energy legislation. 
Most will remember Waxman's activism against the tobacco industry and others in his role as Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As might be expected from a California representative, Waxman is very environmentally friendly (according to environmental groups). He also sponsored the House's version of the "Kid Safe Chemical Act" that would dramatically reform the Toxic Substances Chemical Act (TSCA) [Senator Frank Lautenberg sponsored the original bill in the Senate]. You pretty much know where Waxman will be on any issue.
John Dingell, on the other hand, is a bit of a paradox. He is generally considered a liberal Democrat, and throughout his career he has been a leading congressional supporter of organized labor, social welfare measures and traditional progressive policies. He also "was a primary force behind enactment of the National Wilderness Act, the Water Quality Act of 1965, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act of 1977, the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990." But Dingell is from Michigan, which has put him in the position of actually thwarting legislation that would increase the CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards, based on his feeling that it would hurt the already limping auto industry that remains a big part of Michigan's industrial base. Furthermore, Dingell's wife is a lobbyist for General Motors (and actually a decendant of the founders of GM). While Dingell is considered a reliable and powerful member of the Democratic caucus, he has been at odds with Speaker Pelosi and others on CAFE and climate change issues.
This, of course, has potentially huge ramifications for the prospects of developing sustainable energy policy, which is a goal that President-elect Obama has indicated is high on his list of priorities. So, would having someone like Waxman (a California, "business-oversight" guy) or Dingell (a Michigcan, "I know the auto industry") guy in charge of the committee that will ultimately play a large role in our energy policy of the future? Would Waxman's views result in push-back from industry? Would Dingell's views put him in a better bargaining position with an industry that will likely be further affected by changes to energy policy?
Thoughts?
Posted on Political Futures, Innovation Futures, and Gather It All and Share It With Your Friends.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 124
Show us your TRUE colors Madam Speaker!!!!
My main concern here is that the environment is likely to end up in second place when the priorities get stacked.
The American auto industry is asking government for a "bailout". Any assistance given to the American auto industry has to be tied to serious efficiency standards, and preferably to production of new types of cars/trucks - plug in hybrids, electric cars, fuel-cell cars, etc.
The auto industry is a poster child for old technology that is in need of some dramatic "creative destruction." Hasn't Amory Lovins looked at this issue? I'm sure he has a few good ideas that can make the industry more efficient. It's a start.
I also think that our energy and environmental problems go far beyond the car industry. No, I do not want to un-employ 2 million people, but we need imaginative solutions to Detroit's demise, not just yesterday's answers.
I have tangential (not personal) ties to both Waxman and Dingell (I even saw Waxman on the Metro one day, though I didn't speak to him). A long time ago (when I was a budding marine biologist) Dingell was very influential in passing legislation funding fisheries projects, marine mammal protection, etc. Now I work mostly in the chemical industry evaluating health and safety of chemicals, and Waxman's "Kid Safe Chemical Act" is potentially a major focus of the future (hearings are already scheduled for the spring). Overall, I think both have done a good job, but when it comes to the auto industry I'm still uncertain whether Dingell's ties will be more helpful, or less helpful.
There seems to be a similar analogy with the auto industry.
And over all the Fisheries Management Question seem to be an excellent analogy to the Energy Management Question.
We need someone who will not sellout to 'short sighted' or 'self-oriented' Vested Interests (i.e., the energy companies).
Though it is important that either one be able to work with and talk to them (the vested interests) as partners rather than antagonists, the Congressman needs to maintain the core purpose of his position by being the Lead (representing ALL interests, not just vested ones) and not be used as Dupe. Right now, it seems they act more as dupes for industry than as leaders of congress with wider responsibilities.
Personally, I think Waxman, in the House is more suited to that role and independence.
Waxman, however, has been doing such a great job on the Oversight committee I'd hate to lose him at that position (Can the chair more than one committee?).
Whoever gets the chair, I think it is VERY important that they look into Cheney's Energy meeting he held in the early days of the Bush administration's first term. To go forward with wise energy policy, we Need to know what the Policy blue print has been for the Past eight years. I think Waxman would be best at getting that as well.
Thanks for this discussion David... Very important!
Best,
DJE
But I absolutely agree with you about how to keep their seats - do the jobs all of us elected them to do, which is govern the entire country rather than just special interests (like only half the country).
You also raise a good point about Waxman. I'm not sure how many committees (and subcommittees) any one person can chair. Waxman definitely has a "watchdog" type of personality, which may or may not be the best idea for what needs to be done for energy policy development. While I would be interested to know more about the secret Cheney energy meetings, I'm more inclined to focus our sights on the future rather than the past. We need to get on the right track, and soon. I think it's safe to say that oil and gas development have been the focus of the past, so perhaps what we need is to sit down around a table with all of the stakeholders (oil companies, alternative energy companies, auto makers, environmentalists, public advocacy groups [to help us change our day to day energy use behaviors], Republicans, Democrats, etc.) and have a serious discussion of the options and alternatives. Let's do it right and set a policy that will be sustainable. We know we can't fix things over night, so let's be sure we get ourselves moving in the right direction.
By the way, I have spoken with several EPA people and the general attitude is that they are very happy with the outcome. They tell me that a sense of gloom had settled over the Agency during the current Administration and they have high hopes for the Obama Administration. They may be disappointed - there is only so much one many can accomplish - but for now they seem rejuvenated.
o Restoring integrity to US science policy
o Doubling over a 10 year period the federal investment in basic research
o Making a national commitment to science education and training
o Encouraging American innovation to flourish
o Addressing the "grand challenges" of the 21st century
More details are in the plan, which I think is posted on their web site (Obama Plan
If it doesn't work, go to http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf
It's an enormous task and will take the combined intellect of all of us, no matter what our political views or our country of residence.
If the Democrats form a united front we are in for the same kind of disasters that we got from the Republican lock-step orthodoxy. Neither the right nor the left (nor the middle) is going to be right about everything. We have to hope that the Democrats have a number of "mavericks" in important posts in government. We need in Congress people who really think about our problems and looming problems in a variety of ways.
I'm not sure the EPA necessarily has a "conflicted mandate" as you said. I think it's mandate is clear as the "Environmental Protection Agency." I think the way it was used by the Bush administration created the conflict by his introduction of politics and industry into the Agency itself.
NMFS certainly does have a conflicted mandate, being within the Department of Commerce and I sympathize with their efforts to run that knife's edge...
(I worked for NMFS too while in college (they call themselves NOAA Fisheries now)).
Agencies in the Department of the Interior aren't supposed to be in bed with the industries...
But yes, it is a fine dance and balance... But that is where the Leadership of the Presidency comes in! (I can well believe the relief of the employees at the EPA!).
Bush put so many Industry people into positions that were supposed to balance and regulate the industries that it was a truly sad joke (literally putting foxes in the hen houses, except with rabid human 'foxes' instead of actual foxes). Kennedy wrote an excellent book about it during the first term (which should be known as the "lay up to disaster" as opposed to the second term that should be known as the "slam dunk of disaster").
I agree with you about looking forward. I also think that we need not give them anymore of our energy than they deserve. But I do think that to go forward sometimes we need to resolve our past. So yes, I don't think that the core Plans and Planning for going forward with wise energy policy need revolve around shedding light on the darkness of Cheney and Bush, but I do think it will be instructive in a constructive way and is important.
It's good to see that Plan for Science and Innovation.
I saw in a commentary by Roger Simon called "Audacity Wins" that said "Obama’s victory does not signal a shift in ideology in this country. It signals that the American public has grown weary of ideologies."
I agree. My vote for cast not for a particular ideology but for a chance to govern rationally and for all Americans. A chance to see into the future and start preparing properly for it today instead of merely mortgaging it to China. A chance to actually take a stab at addressing the big issues for which we have a federal government.
Good ideas do not come from one party. The parties are there to make sure that multiple viewpoints are heard, that varied points of view are presented, and that the concerns of everyone are at least put on the table for discussion.
There is every reason to believe that Detroit auto makers can have a rebirth, and create jobs in the process, by actually paying attention to what consumers want and what is going on in the world. I have neighbors who had bought American cars their whole lives but "broke down" and bought a Toyota because they "couldn't stand the bad construction quality, poor reliability and bad gas mileage" of their last several American cars.
There is plenty of opportunity for job maintenance and creation in well-run auto industry (though the economy isn't a help to any manufacturer these days). How about making a few car models, on a massive scale, that don't look like boxes and that use new energy-saving, cost-effective approaches like plug-in hybrid technology at an affordable price? These cars could stimulate buying and help people with their commuting costs, especially if they are affordable. Also, how about getting rid of the absurdly large number of different models that Detroit makes, almost none of which are wanted by anybody (ignoring pick-ups, anyway)? What can the government do to help? Many things. One would be to offer significant tax incentives for people who purchase the new, energy efficient, gasoline-free (or reduced) cars. If Detroit actually made any (or more than one), this would help the US manufacturing companies as long as they could design and build the cars well.
The problem isn't with the American worker, it is with the idiots who run Detroit's companies from the top.
Maybe we should bail out Detroit under the condition that all management in the top 8 levels is fired (8 is an arbitrary number I made up- I have no idea how deep the purge would really have to be) and the companies are required to hire or borrow executives from Honda, Hyundai or Toyota as CEOs and other top executives for a minimum of 10 years?
Thanks for the post.
In all fairness, the US auto makers do have another problem that is more historical than anything else, though the management can be blamed for not dealing with it sooner. And that is the same problem that we have with Social Security. The auto manufacturers (and other industries) promised pensions to all their workers, which was fine when there weren't that many retirees and they died within years after retiring. Now that there are more retirees than workers, and now that retirees can live for decades after retiring, there just isn't enough money in the pensions to cover everyone. This fact alone is killing them (though the CEOs still seem to pad their own nest eggs pretty well still).
The industry needs a wholesale retooling. Which takes new thinking...and new blood.
What you're probably thinking of is the make up of the President-elect's cabinet, which can be comprised of whoever he wants. Obama has indicated that likely two of his cabinet picks will be Republicans, along with some of the other appointees he will make. His stated goal is to find people who can do the job that needs to be done, rather than simply handing out jobs as favors.
Case in point is a recent interview I saw of "Joe the Plumber" calling Obama a socialist. His rationale was that he looked it up in the dictionary and "that's exactly what Obama said." His sole understanding of socialism comes from an entry in the dictionary and a four word statement made off the cuff by Obama. So despite two years of touting his plans and absolutely no one even suggesting that it was socialistic in any shape or fashion, suddenly based on 4 words not only is the plan socialist but so is Obama. That is blind adherence to ideology (i.e., uninformed acceptance of what somebody tells you is best for you).
I know lots of folks in the EPA, and believe me they are all happy. I think it would be a wonderful thing if Obama would appoint a scientist to head that agency (for the first time) instead of a lawyer or politician. That would go a long way toward reaching the goal of non-ideological approach to environmental issues.
Scientists don't always make the best managers. I'm not saying that they never do or that they don't exist...
The key is a good manager that understands and respects the science...
Wilma, I also agree about new faces, and I don't doubt that they are out there...
This Congressional election only rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the new members will quickly be inducted into the "go along to get along" system by the old pros like Dingell and Waxman. Initiation into the corrupt system happens in both parties, and until "We the people" send Congress a message by retiring many of the "old pros" the corruption will continue. The people have to decide whether they want earmarks or a Congress that works for them.
They can't have both!
The current Administrator, Steve Johnson, was a career EPA person. I remember the hope when he reached the upper level appointments was he would use his experience from within the Agency to avoid being unduly influenced politically. The feeling, at least from all the EPA people I know, is that this did not happen. Unfortunately, the Administrator is a politically appointed position, and who the President picks makes a big difference (think Bill Ruckelshaus vs Anne Gorsuch).
I'm curious as to why you equate earmarks with a non-working Congress, as if you could suddenly eliminate earmarks and everything would be okay. It seems that earmarks are only a small part of the problem.
it is said they do not make good managers. I think it is BS. I am with
Sy, someone who knows a subject inside and out, and who has learned
to think, and who has the power and confidence of the administration
to act would make a very good EPA head.
One of the reasons we are in such a morass is that our dumb-shhhh
politicians are so ignorant they relied totally on lobbyists to tell them
what to do, and do not have enough background to know if they
are being advised well, and do not have the intellectual rigor or
undderstanding of objectivism to know how to play the lobbyists
against each other to dig into the truth.
This is just my opinion but the hydrogen idea that is being
pushed is way ahead of its time, if there ever will be one, and
politicians do not seem to get it.
Not to mention there has to be some education and give
on nuclear. There is little choice on that.
rational and scientific people in the government and from
watching his movie it is clear that he made mostly emotional
arguments and was not so clear on what he was saying nor
did he give the other side. He certainly supported the Internet's
design and construction, but if he had a clue he would have
taken up the gauntlet of electronic and digital privacy with
I think will be coming up very soon as a major issue that
Americans are completely clueless about.
I agree that there is a need for better education of politicians on scientific (and many other) aspects.
As for Carl Sagan, I had the privilege of meeting him once (very briefly). He had the unique ability to think on a very technical level (try reading Broca's Brain) and yet talk on a level the public could appreciate. Isaac Asimov was another guy that could do that (perhaps because he also wrote science fiction in addition to hard science).
Flying is problematic. With global warming the numbers say we are already cooked. Somehow we need to get everyone onboard with saving the planet, that is job number 1 really.
The bottom line is that we need to change our mindset. The whole idea of "drill baby drill" is emblematic of the limited vision we have been employing. I'm increasingly interested in opening up the vision, both in a broader sense (peripherally to see all current solutions) and hyperopically (i.e., into the distance, as in the future).
RMI developed the concept of the "Hypercar" in the 1990s.
More on Lovins' push to "lightweight" cars and double efficiency.
I'll take a look at the RMI newsletter (I'm on a quick break). Thanks for your insights.
Sun, wind power could threaten grid. Adding electricity from the wind and sun could increase the frequency of blackouts and reduce the reliability of the nation’s electrical grid, according to a report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The report, which will be released today, said that unless appropriate measures are taken to improve transmission of electricity, rules reducing carbon dioxide emissions by utilities could impair the reliability of the power grid.
To some degree the Carbon Footprint of flying to conferences is a bit of a canard (a flying canard??? heh, sorry)...
Look at it from the view of airline schedules and the "as is" situation of airline activity. With a conference held in one country, say the Netherlands for example, and say 500 scientists flying to it from around the world, they will be traveling there from a diverse list of home cities. Unless a group of scientists charter a jetliner to get to the Netherlands, those flights were scheduled to go there already.
Now for the 'politic:' if the conference is not 'frivolous' and truly an important part of the scientific process, and if at the conference a "green" ethic is raised and imparted on the scientists and the purpose of the conference furthers the efforts of "greening" the world, then there is a positive 'trade-back' and 'payoff' to the conference in the direction of "greening" the world.
[The idea of 'tele-conferencing' or 'virtual conferencing, though, is gaining traction and popularity].
Now for a scattering of the "realistic:" aside from the political 'self-justification' of flying to conferences, we do know that it is the little individual things that add up to our overall approach to living that matters. So, long lasting change happens when we choose to do the little things differently as individuals, like flying. And that has to be part of the long term equation.
Bruce, as a scientist I think David said it well regarding scientists as managers and I think I pointed out as well that it is not necessarily always the case.
Respect for and understanding of science is vital either way (whoever/whatever has the top spot in EPA). It was Bush's approach to disregard science that was so destructive and counterproductive.
That is why leadership of the President IS so important regardless of who/what takes that top spot.
It may be further along than we think. This, from the above referenced RMI newsletter:
"The concept of Smart Garage technology and infrastructure is no longer a futuristic vision. Activities in multiple sectors are already underway -- such as the push for a Smart Grid, and thousands of converted plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are already hitting the road."
David Evans: "...we do know that it is the little individual things that add up to our overall approach to living that matters. So, long lasting change happens when we choose to do the little things differently as individuals, like flying. And that has to be part of the long term equation."
Individual efforts have been necessary, not so much for the actual effect on ghgs, but for the groundswell of demand for public policy that will actually have the desired effect. It will be very interesting to see the approach the Obama administration will take.
we do have to change our mindsets, and at least part of that is to recognize that with all the troubles we have one thing that has been saving our butts has been nuclear power, particularly in Europe. it can geneate the magnitude of energy we need including growth, it is CO2 free, and it is sustainable for the forseeable future.
considering the CO2 we have already dumped out there is still in the pipeline to alter climate there is not a lot of choice.
changing the electrical grid sounds good ... it is just a few feelgood words, but the reality has to be proven. I don't know why people cannot separate these issues and look at them objectively, you do not need a high level of technical expertise to understand some of these basic ideas.
You can sign petitions to "stay on the politicians" at Repower America and/or The Pickens Plan.
Indeed, Friedman addressed the 25th Anniversay Conference at RMI.
David: "I like the Smart Grid idea...clearly it will take some incredible change in mentality for it ever to happen."
RMI recently hosted a conference re: the smart garage, including many of the corporations that would be involved in creating/profiting from its development, e.g., GM, Nissan, PG&E, Duke Energy, IBM, P&G, Wal-Mart and Google.
Electric-Powered Future Two Years Away?
"Automakers, utility companies and others are working together to create a grid that creates one big power source out of electric vehicles. And it's closer to becoming a reality than you might think."
Obama's election gurantees $ 200 a barrel oil. We have to increase domestic oil production and we have to do it now, but Democrats won't budge on this issue, and it will be the reason they are tossed out of Congress within 4 years. Their allegiance to the radical enviornmentalists and their absolute embrace of the ridiculous idea that we can actually control the weather on this planet will be their undoing.
And frankly, it's a little hard to take seriously someone who has posted nothing and has no friends...who merely signed up under a silly pseudonym in order to leave unsupportable, uninformed, and often illogical comments that are contrary to thoughtful discourse. At best, it makes you look silly.
Gore's hockey stick theory has been dubunked, the polar bears dying debunked, seas rising 20 ft in 100 years debunked. Ice core samples from glaciers indicate carbon levels 30 TIMES HIGHER during the Ice Age than they are today. According to JPL Labs Mars and Pluto have both warmed by a degree over the past decade. Hmmmm.... very coincidental, don't you think? Earth warming at the same time other planets in our galaxy -- could there possibly be a correlation? These are inconvenient truths Mr. Gore and others don't want to debate. I could debunk all of them in about 30 minutes in a serious debate.
I just joined a week or so ago, so if you want to be my first Gather friend Dave -- I'm honored.
China has 1200 new coal-fired power plants on the books to build in the next 15 years, which means carbon levels will not be going down, regardless of what we do. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Mexico are all declining in oil production rapidly. What does that add up to in 2 years? Answer -- a global energy crisis and prices that will be almost double what we paid last summer. None of the alternatives will be available to prevent this. The ONLY choice we have is to increase our own production by 1 million bpd, and we have to cut through all the red tape to get it done in 2 years.
I keep hearing politicians talking about this like we have a choice -- we don't! We have to do this or we will face the worst inflation this country has ever seen on top of a recession. It is a crisis completely manufactured by Democrats who believe they can control the weather on this planet. Dave, we don't have time to waste. Everyone has to acknowledge the reality and push Congress to act and act quickly.
The fact that India and China are only now getting geared up in their use of non-renewable resources also emphasizes why reliance on dwindling oil and gas reserves and dirty coal technologies is a losing game.
This is the reality that must be acknowledged.
I didn't say we don't need to develop alternatives. That is a wise course to chart, but it's not my fault we have wasted 30 years since the embargo of the 70's. I am looking at the situation on the ground and crunching the numbers. Obama's plug-in hybrids are an untested technology that will not even be available for 2 more years, and nobody's going to have the money to buy them. If OPEC takes 2 million bpd a day off the market and continues to divest in future production, they will not have the capacity to ramp up again. Where are we going to get the oil we need, Dave?
We are financing all these bailouts by printing money. This translates into an extreme dollar devaluation within 24 months that will send oil prices sky high. I'm talking about inflation like you've never seen. This is not theory -- it's based on what has happened in the past. Our economy will not be strong enough to stand the shock of this scenario. What good is all this new technology going to do if our economy collapses in the meantime? The situation is dire and people better wake up. We are planting the seeds for our own demise.