Post

A regime change with far-reaching effects…

This was one of those weeks in Washington when pigs flew and hell froze over. The longest-serving member of the House, Rep. John Dingell (D, MI), the chair of the powerful Energy & Commerce Committee, was overthrown by Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), the guy who represents Beverly Hills, the second ranking Democrat on that committee and one of the most liberal members of the House.

So, you shrug, “Why should I care?” You should care because this committee, even more than the agriculture committees, will work its will in the next two years over just about every area of your life and business. It’s jurisdiction takes in FDA and all food/feed law; national energy policy, including exploration and development, along with pricing, marketing and regulation of all fuels; green house gas emissions and climate change; public utilities; interstate commerce, medical research and all communications issues.

The Waxman coup d’etat is almost unprecedented so sacred is the House seniority system. For Waxman, who’s top priority is regulating the heck out of business and industry over our respective “carbon footprints,” his days as chair of the Government Operations & Oversight Committee must have become boring now there’s a Democrat in the White House.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D,CA) said she stayed out of the battle — described by Rep. George Miller (D, CA) and Waxman’s front man in the takeover — as “Zeus and Thor hurling thunderbolts at each other.” There’s no way Pelosi stayed out of the mix. First of all, it’s well known she and Dingell do not get along and that he’s one of the few committee chairs in the House she can’t control. But for Waxman to even contemplate such a move, she, as party leader, had to have green-lighted the campaign. Most media sources said Pelosi was twisting arms for Waxman among the Democrats right up until the full House caucus vote.

Waxman is, in a hyphenated understatement, anti-business, or as one colleague said, “He’s never met a corporation he trusts.” I’d say that’s true unless you’re a movie studio or some other California entity because Waxman’s entire approach to national legislation was summed up by a Hill staffer as “If it’s good for California, it’s good for the country.” That’s a very scary approach to legislating.

Whereas Dingell could rip the head off a CEO testifying before his committee in a second if he thought the executive was evading his questions or lieing to the panel, he was generally known to rely on science and fact to inform his decisions and was highly conscious of economic impacts and such. He also could, when warranted, take a view much broader than his own district.

It’s somewhat troubling to me that California Democrats and their agenda are now in control of the entire global warming/carbon capture/energy policy/climate change debate. Consider the cast of legislative characters in this issue: Pelosi (D, CA), a champion of more-than-strong environmental regulation; Waxman (D,CA), her faithful and now grateful lieutenant; Miller (D, CA), chair of the Education & Labor Committee and member of the Natural Resources panel, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D,CA), chair of the Environment & Public Works Committee. Interestingly, all these folks harken from a state that is chronically short of energy, yet won’t build power plants or allow off-shore drilling.

Where Dingell looked at carbon capture/cap-and-trade legislation from the perspective we can cut green house gas emissions without bankrupting corporate America, and yes, there should be a federal standard that preempts the states, the chauvinism of this California cabal recoils from such a view. They also take great heart in the fact President-elect Barack Obama talked a strong show on energy policy, and I’m sure they assume he’ll be with them on any tack they take to get a California-type climate change bill through Congress. I’m not so sure they’re correct.

Another lost opportunity: Where Dingell was set to try and reform food safety regulation in this country, and was working in a collaborative way to do it, that issue has now slid far down the likely agenda of a Waxman-led committee.

Being the eternal optimist that I am — a former boss used to call me “just another round-headed kid from Minnesota” — I’m hoping Waxman takes a go-slow approach to his new chairmanship. I hope he goes out of his way to mend fences with offended colleagues, becomes more collaborative in his approach to legislation with both his GOP colleagues and with the folks his committee will most direct impact. I hope he takes a broader view of the impacts of any action, as in what something means for the country, not just California.

Dingell will not go quietly, in fact, he remains on the committee as “chairman emeritus.” This is good news because it means there will be a very powerful presence acting as the conscience of that panel as it deliberates policy that impacts each and every one of us.