08-11-2001
ENVIRONMENT: The Pressures That Crushed Greens' Dreams
In 1990, when the House was debating legislation to overhaul the Clean Air
Act, an aide to Rep. John D. Dingell was asked why the Michigan Democrat
relentlessly fought every attempt to impose new air pollution restrictions
on cars. Noting that the auto industry is a big employer in Dingell's
Detroit-area congressional district, the aide declared: "John Dingell
does not believe he was elected to Congress to bankrupt his
constituents."
This summer, Dingell, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, once again managed to protect Detroit, this time by
blocking an amendment that would have forced automakers to produce
sport-utility vehicles that are significantly more fuel-efficient than
today's models. Dingell joined forces with Republicans on the committee to
instead adopt a confusing amendment likely to result in SUV
fuel-efficiency increases of only about one mile per gallon within five
years.
Dingell's deal frustrated many Democrats, moderate Republicans, and
environmentalists who were seeking tougher new corporate average fuel
economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs. And it also helped fracture House
Democrats, who until that point had presented a relatively unified front
against the entire GOP energy package. "Once you have the ranking
member cut a deal, you have a hard time arguing for party unity," a
House Democratic staff member observed. After Dingell sided with the GOP
on SUV standards, many other Democrats felt free to strike deals to
benefit their districts.
On August 3, the Republican energy bill-including Dingell's SUV
provision-passed the House by a vote of 240-189, with three dozen
Democrats breaking ranks to endorse it and nearly the same number of
Republicans voting no. President Bush declared the vote to be a rousing,
bipartisan victory for his energy policies. House Democratic leaders, who
had strongly attacked Bush's package as being too pro-industry, quietly
left town for the August recess.
Dingell's gambit was one of many behind-the-scenes moves that doomed the
efforts of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans to make the GOP
energy bill more pro-environment. The House-passed package closely follows
the energy agenda that Bush unveiled in May. Like Bush's plan, the House
energy bill would allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and would provide massive tax and research benefits to the oil,
natural gas, coal, and nuclear power industries. Unlike the Bush plan, the
House bill also includes modest financial supports for developing
energy-conservation measures and energy-efficient products.
When the President proposed his energy package, House Democratic leaders
derided it as little more than a gift to the energy companies that helped
elect him. Environmental groups vowed to fight drilling in the Arctic
wildlife refuge and to increase the fuel efficiency of SUVs-both
considered Holy Grail issues by the green activists. But as the House
began deliberations on the legislation, opposition to those key GOP
provisions was undercut by Dingell's deal on SUVs and by several other
maneuvers:
* Energy companies threw millions of dollars into lobbying on Capitol Hill
and, in 20 congressional districts, ran radio and television ads
supporting the Bush plan. (During the 2000 election cycle, energy
companies had contributed nearly $65 million in individual, political
action committee, and soft-money donations to federal candidates and to
the political parties' campaign committees, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics. Three-quarters of that energy money powered
Republican campaigns.)
* Labor unions twisted arms to get votes for the GOP bill. Citing the jobs
that might be created, the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO lobbied for drilling
in Alaska. The United Auto Workers, meanwhile, sided with Dingell in
opposing tougher CAFE standards. The Teamsters also reportedly leaned on
some of the urban and Rust Belt members to whom they have regularly
contributed.
* Republican leaders in the House and the White House aggressively
demanded that GOP members toe the party line on what they billed as a top
Bush Administration priority. The White House "was promising the
moon" in its efforts to gain lawmakers' support for Bush's energy
proposals, according to one Democratic House staff member. And Rep. Don
Young, R-Alaska, used his chairmanship of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee as leverage to gain support for Arctic drilling.
He reportedly threatened to withdraw his support for some members' pet
transportation projects if they didn't side with the President.
As a result of those combined pressures, an amendment to eliminate the
provision allowing oil drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge was
defeated, 206-223. Thirty-four moderate Republicans, primarily from the
Northeast, sided with the Democrats in unsuccessfully trying to strip that
provision from the bill. However, 36 Democrats joined the Republicans to
kill the amendment. Among those who preserved the drilling provision were
16 Democrats from Texas and other Gulf Coast oil-producing states, four
Democrats from pro-union Pennsylvania districts, and five members of the
Congressional Black Caucus eager to protect their ties to organized
labor.
An amendment to overturn Dingell's deal by imposing stricter
fuel-efficiency standards on SUVs was defeated even more soundly, 160-269.
Democrats who sided with the auto industry and with the Republican
leadership on that vote included 29 Representatives from the industrial
Midwest, 14 from Texas, and 22 members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Those Democrats included House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of
Missouri, Minority Whip David E. Bonior of Michigan, and Democratic Caucus
Chairman Martin Frost of Texas. They were joined by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of
Maryland, who is seeking the Democratic whip post that Bonior will vacate
when he retires next year. Dingell is heading Hoyer's campaign.
In May, when Bush released his energy strategy, environmental lobbyists
all but wrote off the Republican-controlled House and looked to the Senate
to rewrite the White House energy provisions more to their liking. But the
environmentalists' prospects seemed to be improving when, in the weeks
leading up to House consideration of the energy package, moderate
Republicans won small but significant victories on environmental bills-to
bar drilling in national monuments and to limit arsenic levels in drinking
water. Emboldened moderates in the House then set their sights on blocking
the President's Alaska oil-drilling proposal and enacting stronger
efficiency standards for SUVs.
The David-and-Goliath story was picked up by national newspapers, which
suggested that the moderates had a chance of toppling Bush's energy
program. However, those articles didn't take into account the pressure
already building on the other side.
On the Bush Administration proposal to allow drilling in the Alaska
wildlife refuge, for example, the pro-drilling GOP leaders got an
unexpected boost from the Teamsters. House Republicans agreed to a
legislative provision requiring all new oil-exploration jobs to be filled
by union workers. In return, the Teamsters promoted a study indicating
that drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge would generate 735,000 new
jobs, most of them outside Alaska. Those numbers came from a 1995 study
financed by the American Petroleum Institute that environmentalists say
wildly exaggerated the number of jobs to be created.
In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the Teamsters also ran radio ads
describing environmental groups that opposed the drilling as
"intolerant and excessive." Environmental leaders, who have
worked shoulder to shoulder with union officials on trade issues, were
outraged. "They did not deal with us as allies would deal,"
complained one environmental leader. The green lobbyists suggested that
the action will hurt the union's future relations with the environmental
community. But Jerry Hood, energy policy adviser to Teamsters President
James P. Hoffa, said he's not worried. "Something folks don't
understand is that we're not an environmental organization," he
said.
To gain support for the oil-drilling proposal, Republicans also adopted a
smoke-and-mirrors amendment that appeared to dramatically limit the number
of acres they were seeking for oil exploration. That amendment restricted
drilling to 2,000 acres at the northern edge of the 19.5 million-acre
wildlife refuge. However, the oil industry has always targeted only a
2,000-acre area for drilling there.
In a late-night vote, enough Democrats sided with the Republicans to beat
efforts to kill the drilling provision. Moments later, Philip Clapp,
president of the National Environmental Trust, fired off an angry news
release charging: "The minute the labor unions showed up on the
doorstep, a significant number of Democrats ditched their environmental
rhetoric and jumped in bed with President Bush, oil companies, and the
auto companies."
The Bush energy plan will no doubt face tougher going in the Senate,
however. The day after the House vote, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., attempted to throw cold water on the jubilant
Republicans by threatening to filibuster any energy bill that includes
drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge. Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., also opposes drilling
in the Arctic refuge and has supported tougher fuel-efficiency standards
for SUVs.
That's good news to the environmental community, which is "drawing a
line in the sand" in the Senate, according to Betsy Loyless,
political director for the League of Conservation Voters. In preparation
for Senate action, the Sierra Club is running radio ads in 10
congressional districts to thank House members who voted with the
environmental community, criticize those who went the other way, and ask
voters to urge their Senators to oppose oil drilling in the Alaska
refuge.
Negative ads will target Rep. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., who voted against
the environmentalists and who is expected to challenge Sen. Bob Smith in
the Republican primary. The Sierra Club is also targeting Rep. Heather
Wilson, R-N.M., who sided with the Republican leadership after having
publicly promised to vote with the environmental community.
The green activists say the fight in the Senate will be do-or-die.
"This is war," an environmental leader warned. "If the
Democrats in the Senate capitulate like Dingell did, they'd be
neutralizing the best issue they've got to attack Bush and the Republicans
with in 2002."
Margaret Kriz
National Journal
