Rep. John Dingell
Climate Change Will Drive Our Agenda
April / May 2007
Volume 5 Number 2
Rep. John Dingell is one of only a handful of living legends serving in the U.S. Congress. The 80-year-old Michigan Democrat was first elected to the House in 1955, and he has held the seat ever since, making him the second-longest serving member of Congress in history. His father, John Dingell Sr., held the seat before him and Dingell still uses some of the office furniture bequeathed to him by his dad.
The plain-spoken chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is a staunch Democrat, but is hardly predictable. Dingell, who represents the heart of the U.S. automotive industry in Detroit, has come out against recent proposals to boost fuel efficiency standards. He's also opposed the Kyoto Treaty as terribly unfair to the United States, but he has also vowed to find ways to help mitigate the effects of global climate change.
Dingell recently took time from his very busy schedule to answer a few of Innovation Magazine's questions about his leadership of the committee, global warming, the state of the U.S. auto industry and other issues.
Please outline your top two or three objectives as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee during the first year of the 110th Congress?
The committee has a tremendous amount of work before it, given the number of important issues in need of attention and the committee's wide jurisdictional responsibilities. We are aggressively working to address the problem of global warming. This issue has emerged as one of the central environmental issues of our time. We will work to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by promoting alternative fuel infrastructure, encouraging domestic development and production of advanced technology vehicles and reviewing existing programs to see if there is room for improvement. There are nearly 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance. Our failure to help the uninsured harms American families, and further it puts American manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage. We have begun inquiring into the safety of our nation's food and drug supply. We will make sure consumers are protected during the transition from analog to digital television.
What is your personal position on the validity of the climate change phenomenon and what, if anything, should the U.S.—€”and other countries—€”do to mitigate the effects?
There is little doubt that global temperatures are rising and that human activity is the cause. It is time for the Congress to conduct a thorough examination of the issue and take emphatic action. That is why our committee has begun a comprehensive examination of climate change. By the end of March we will have held 10 hearings related to energy security and climate change. We will continue to ask questions and ask for input from the administration, representatives from industrial, labor and environmental groups and from scientists and economists in order to produce a legislative solution.
Is such a thorough examination of the issue easy? No, but it is necessary. Climate change is a trial of great complexity, and any effective solution must recognize that fact. We do not have the luxury of delay, but we do have the obligation of diligence. We must remember that although swift action is needed, the effects of ill-conceived and rushed legislation will linger, along with carbon in our atmosphere, for years to come.
We must conserve the amount of energy we use. We must increase the use of alternative fuels that burn more cleanly and replenish more quickly, and we must expand the infrastructure needed to support them. Moreover, we must achieve all this in a manner that allows our industry to remain competitive and our economy to grow. To accomplish these goals, any and all policy options must be on the table.
How would you assess the state of the U.S. auto industry and what are its best hopes for a strong recovery?
The industry is responsible for roughly 13.3 million American jobs. In recent years, an unfriendly international trade environment and disproportionately high levels of expenditures on costs such as retiree health care have created difficult financial conditions for American companies. Another potentially significant impact on the industry could come as the result of federal action on climate change and energy independence. If structured haphazardly, legislation could place unfair and unreasonable burdens on the industry. It is my intent and expectation, however, that we will structure a feasible economy-wide fix that will compel industries in all sectors of the economy to contribute to the solution, and will allow all of them to remain competitive.
Representatives from the automobile industry recently promised to work with our committee in crafting an effective and workable approach and I hope representatives from other industries will do the same. The strength of the automobile industry continues, as it has always been, to rest in dedicated people with a strong propensity for innovation. For example, domestic automakers are ramping up their development and production of alternative and flex-fuel vehicles; domestic policy should likewise be focused on increasing the availability of fuel sources other than petroleum and the infrastructure needed to support them.
Although I believe that the federal government must ultimately also address fundamental economic constraints such as health care and currency manipulation to allow the auto industry to remain competitive, I also believe that smart and responsible federal approaches to new issues will allow companies to overcome obstacles to growth and maintain their vital place in the U.S. economy.
You've been reluctant to take action to curb vehicle emission, i.e., CAFE standards? Why is that and what else could be done to help reduce these emissions?
In 1975, in the midst of the Arab oil embargo, Congress created Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as a way to better conserve energy resources. They have largely served that function. Today, Americans drive cars that are more fuel efficient and better for the environment. To date, CAFE remains the only program in existence that has the effect of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But the current state of CAFE is far from perfect, and we must now ask a series of difficult questions. Are CAFE standards in their current form still the most effective way to achieve their stated objective? Has the objective changed? Can a regulatory structure created in the 1970s evolve in such a way to combat a 21st century challenge with 21st century technologies? We must work on answering these questions in order to produce a legislative solution.
There are several proposals pending in Congress to help make America more competitive in math and science. Do you think Congress will pass and fund such an expensive initiative and what are the most important elements of these proposals?
Across the globe, hundreds of countries have joined the movement to produce a high-quality workforce using their education systems. It is well overdue for America to make the same commitment to our future. Genuine investment in higher education is an essential component in preserving America's global leadership. Access to higher education is no longer a bonus four years for the more fortunate members of society; it has become a necessity in order to achieve the coveted American dream. That dream, however, is fading rapidly. Other countries are taking advantage of their highly skilled workforces to rapidly advance in research and development while America dawdles. We cannot afford to keep losing ground in the global marketplace because our kids can't afford to go to college. If we do not act now, this great country will soon be plodding along in an old jalopy watching rest of the world speed by us in brand new Mustangs.
You're one of the longest-serving members in the history of Congress so we're honored to have your perspectives on these matters. But before we go we're curious as to what you view as the biggest differences between the way Congress operates now as opposed to say, 30 or 40 years ago?
When I became chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce the first time around in 1980, I legislated from the center. I brought both parties to the table—€”we got together, rolled up our sleeves and worked to produce legislation that most members of the committee could support. Much of our legislation passed by wide margins in committee and when it reached the floor. The committee did not proceed on an issue until everyone was on board. The process was open and fair. We held lots of hearings and markups. We consulted with the Republicans. During the twelve years in which the Republicans controlled the House there was much less consultation and the process became flawed. We were holding legislative hearings after legislation had already passed out of committee; at times legislation was brought straight to the floor with no committee consideration, no opportunity for debate or to ask questions. I was never accused of being an unfair chairman the first time around and I don't intend to build such a reputation now. I will operate the committee as I always have, as fairly and openly as possible.
Tom Michael reports from Washington for Innovation.
Copyright © 2012 | Innovation America