INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”

Guest: Congressman John Dingell D-MI

Reporters: Edmund Andrews, New York Times &

Greg Hitt, Wall Street Journal

Moderator: C-SPAN

TAPE DATE: Friday, July 6, 2007

AIR DATE/TIME: SUNDAY, July 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET

Please use with attribution to C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*

* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network

Please contact Jennifer Moire in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at

202-626-8797 or jmoire@c-span.org for questions

© NCSC

Copyrighted material: use with attribution only

SUSAN SWAIN, HOST: C-SPAN’s Newsmakers is very pleased to welcome this week the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman John Dingell of Michigan, who is joining us from Capitol Hill on this Friday afternoon.

Chairman, thank you very much for being with us.

U.S. REP. JOHN DINGELL, D-MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE: Delighted to be here. Thank you.

SWAIN: Our two reporters, who have been covering energy policy for their national newspapers are Greg Hitt of the “Wall Street Journal” and Ed Andrews of the “New York Times.”

Mr. Andrews, why don’t we start with you?

EDMUND ANDREWS, ECONOMICS AND ENERGY REPORTER, “NEW YORK TIMES”: Thank you. Hello, Mr. Chairman.

DINGELL: Good afternoon, my friend.

ANDREWS: You are going to be bringing an energy bill to the House floor in the next couple of weeks.

Before your committee marked up its legislation, you removed what you called the more controversial provisions – provisions that would address corporate fuel economy standards for cars, federal assistance for coal-based fuels and the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions from cars.

Are you satisfied with what’s left in the energy bill? And if not, what other things do you want to pass, would you like to see Congress pass, by the end of this year?

DINGELL: Well, first of all, what the committee has done has been to meet the requests of the speaker to come forward with a bill, which could pass early, and get this country going with regard to addressing the problems of global warming, fuel efficiency, dependence on imported fuels and a number of other questions that are important, I think, to the people.

This we have done.

We will start in September on a major piece of global warming legislation, where we will deal with all the controversial questions, which we left out, and where we will deal with questions like cap-and-trade, and other matters.

It should be noted that our committee is one of about seven or eight committees, which now has major legislation which will be coming to the floor, I would anticipate early in July, either as a combined piece of legislation or as a series of separate bills.

SWAIN: Follow-up?

ANDREWS: Yes. Can you tell us anything more about what combination of bills will actually be in the package that arrives in July? This was left somewhat up in the air when the speaker held a big news conference with you and other committee chairmen.

DINGELL: Well, by an interesting coincidence, I happen to have a resume of the bill, which I’ll address here.

Residential appliance efficiency. Everything from clothes washers, dryers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, residential boilers will be covered, and a lot of other things, including refrigerators and freezers.

This will be mandated – something which has been avoided by every administration since we passed the first legislation back in the 1970s.

Lighting efficiency, which will impose mandatory targets on future lighting efficiency, so as to save a tremendous amount of energy that is wasted now in inefficient lighting.

Beyond that, building efficiency. It encourages stronger building codes, which is something that will save a large part of perhaps the 25 percent of our energy we use in housing, and houses and buildings and so forth.

In addition to that, we’re going to require that we move towards a smart grid, a grid which uses our electric current generated in the most efficient way – something which is extremely important.

A requirement for the federal agencies to reduce electric consumption by one percent for 10 years. And a modernization commission to study how the process is going and what more has to be done in concert with EPA, which will make a similar study.

Then we will address the problem of loan guarantees, which are not moving forward as they should, to encourage the needed investment in new kinds of fuels and new technologies.

Last of all, we will have active work on the next generation of batteries, something which we desperately need, if we are, for example, to move towards hybrid cars and toward fuel-efficient cars, or plug-in electric and hybrid cars.

And of course, renewable fuels infrastructure. We have tremendous capability to produce new kinds of fuels and renewable fuels for automobiles and other things. But we haven’t got any infrastructure to deliver it. This will be encouraged by the bill.

And last of all, there will be enhancement of the energy efficiency, rather, the energy information service, so that we can begin to understand what we’re doing, how we’re doing it, what more we have to do, and how we should do things differently.

GREG HITT, STAFF REPORTER, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Mr. Chairman, can I jump in and follow up on the details of the bill?

DINGELL: Anything you’re mind to.

HITT: You sketched a bill that does not include production incentives for fossil fuels – coal and oil, natural gas.

Some of your Republican friends in the House have raised questions about that and offered criticism, and said that it’s not really a – shouldn’t be called an energy bill, if you don’t have some sort of production incentives.

And I’m wondering how you would respond to those critics. And then, what is the – what is your reason for choosing a bill that does not at this point have those kinds of incentives in it?

DINGELL: Well, first of all, I don’t know what you’re going to call this bill. It is obviously an energy bill, because it impacts very directly on energy.

And it does, for example, deal with renewable fuels infrastructure, and it does deal with the question of Department of Energy loan guarantees, so as to help move these new technologies forward, in terms of dealing with renewable fuels.

Now, having said that, as you will recall, earlier, I pointed out that we’re going to go into the consideration of a much broader bill with much more controversial questions, including the overall question of global warming.

And included in that will be things that my Republican colleagues said they wanted. I have assured them – although some of them seem to have a little difficulty understanding this – that we are going to address the problem of production of fuels.

We will deal with all manner of energy questions there – probably including nuclear, probably there including questions like further enhancement of our capability to produce renewable fuels, and to deal with things like coal-to-liquid and other kinds of technologies that will remove from this country a large part of the burden of paying for huge amounts of imported fuel, which is literally destituting the country.

HITT: On the issue climate change, the bill that you intend to draft this fall, you had earlier this year said you thought the debate about the science on climate change was over, that you had become convinced that there was a problem that needed dramatic action by policymakers such as yourself.

And I wondered if you could step back a little bit and tell us about how you reached that conclusion, and what you can point to that, for you, made up your mind that climate change is a significant issue that needs to be addressed?

DINGELL: Well, to answer the first question, there is now, I think, a broad scientific consensus that we have a major problem with this.

I’m not a scientist, and I don’t usually argue with the scientists.

But I do look to see that their judgments are, in fact, sound, because I’ve found some scientists that weren’t as truthful as they could have been or should have been.

But on this issue, the scientists seem to have a broad, honest consensus in the matter, that this is a significant problem of the country, which must be addressed – not just for this country, but, quite frankly, for the whole world.

Having said that, there also is a consensus among the American people that they want something done. And I’m going to try and address both of those problems. And I keep reminding people that the Congress works for the people of the country, and that if the people want something, it is the Congress’ business to do it.

Now, having said that, I’m going to try and see that, if it is done, it is done well, it is done responsibly, and that it is effective and well drafted and that it is in the broad public interest.

HITT: You’re not a scientist, but you do have some training as a – academic training – as a chemist, I think, back in your youth.

Was there anything particularly, though, in the scientific community brought to you that you thought tripped you over in terms of convincing you that this was an important issue that needed to be addressed?

DINGELL: Not really. There’s all kinds of things that are happening out there. And the scientific community, as I say, has a very broad and a very solid consensus on this matter.

And very frankly, that, I think, should be enough for me or for most other lawmakers.

ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman, you said a week or so ago – about two weeks ago – that you recognize that some of your more ideological colleagues on the left and the right would not be satisfied with your energy bill.

Within the Democratic Party, or the ideological people on the left, who and what kinds of players were you alluding to there? Who is ideological?

DINGELL: There’s a great statement made about a famous Frenchman who was dying. And the priest came in and asked him, did he renounce Satan and accept God?

And he said, “You know, I don’t think that I have the luxury of losing any friends at this time.”

I’m a fellow who’s going to have to go get some votes. And right now, I’m not going to come and do anything to anybody. I’m going to try and get as much as I can in the way of support for this legislation.

And I would remind you that my practice has always been to build from the middle. And we have usually found out, when the process ends, who the extremists on the right and the left are. They usually don’t support what we are doing.

And I would cite the Clean Air Act of 1990, when we passed it by 420, or something like that, to 10. And it was the far left and the far right that gave us difficulty.

ANDREWS: Speaker Pelosi said that she favors the Senate bill to increase fuel economy standards for cars, CAFE standards for cars and trucks.

Do you expect a showdown with her and other House leaders when this bill comes to the floor?

DINGELL: My job is to write legislation and, very frankly, to see to it that it is good legislation and to bring everybody into the tent, so that we can all support a good piece of legislation.

I’m not running out and picking fights with anybody on this subject.

I would simply observe to you that the Senate CAFE bill had no hearings. It was drafted very late at night without any particular attention to detail. And the House – at least where I’m functioning – tends to be a rather more careful legislative body.

There are real defects in this. I have made it very plain, that I intend to see to it that CAFE is increased. And I think I can support an increase that would reach the levels of the Senate bill.

I also would observe that I have told industry that they’re going to get a significant increase in CAFE. My job is to see to it that that is done without a loss of jobs, without a loss of industry, without a loss of opportunity to the people in this country. Both responsibilities are very heavy.

HITT: Mr. Chairman, can you elaborate more on the kind of CAFE fuel economy proposal that you can support? You mention you could support a proposal that would reach the Senate levels. But you identify that there are defects in the Senate plan.

What would be your response? What would be your alternative?

DINGELL: Well, my response would be, of – I’ve got two very fine colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Congressman Terry of Nebraska and Congressman Hill of Indiana – two outstanding members.

They’ve come forward with a bill that does 32 miles for light trucks and 35 miles for automobiles. And they do it by the year – by roughly the same timeframe the Senate does.

I can support this. I have no problems.

The Senate has got in there certain provisions which, in fact, make the Senate bill a little bit delusionary.

For example, if you take one of the manufacturers in this country – and I won’t mention the name – but if you look at their model mix, CAFE, as drawn by the Senate bill, in fact is not 35 miles a gallon, or 30 miles a gallon, for cars and light trucks. In fact, it’s 54 miles per gallon.

If that happens, that company will close up and about 60,000 citizens of this country will lose their jobs, and the cars will be produced abroad, not in the United States.

HITT: But why push this off into an economy-wide (ph) climate bill, instead of doing it on the energy bill?

You have a prominent member of your committee, Mr. Markey, who wants it as part of the energy bill.

How do you – why the change in strategy in pushing it off?

DINGELL: Well, there’s no change in strategy. This has been the strategy from the beginning.

It was my strategy to include CAFE and questions of that character, in the broader climate change bill. The speaker wanted a different bill earlier, and we have given the speaker that different bill.

Members are always entitled to their views. And I respect all of my colleagues, including Mr. Markey.

But I have to remind everybody that I’m the chairman of the committee, and I have been processing difficult legislation for 50 years. And I think I have enough experience that my judgment should be listened to.

SWAIN: We have about 12 minutes left.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to your statement that the American people want action.

Does that also correlate with the American people being willing to pay higher prices, because of energy legislation?

DINGELL: I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.

I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people really feel about this. And it will impose, for example, on gasoline a 50 cent tax. It also will place a very substantial tax on CO2 emissions, amounting to a double-digit tax on tons of CO2 emitted.

And I think, when you see the criticism I get, you’ll understand that you will be getting the answer to your question.

SWAIN: Where does the leadership come from, then, if, in fact, global warming is a problem you think must be fixed, policy has to change, and it will in fact cost more, but the American public isn’t willing to pay the price?

DINGELL: That’s a very nice question, isn’t it.

SWAIN: You have no answer?

DINGELL: You ask, where does the leadership come from? I’m going to try and give it.

I’m hoping that I will be supported by the leadership in the House and the Senate. I’m hoping that I will be supported by the White House. I’m hoping that the American people will endorse the idea.

We’ll find out whether the American people – and whether their leaders here in Washington and elsewhere around the country – are willing to support what they have to do to really address the problem.

ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman, can you clarify what you’re trying to do here?

Are you saying that the way to go – the best way to go from a policy standpoint – is to have a substantial carbon tax on gasoline or oil? Or – because that’s the best way to achieve the ends of reduced greenhouse emissions and so forth.

Or are you basically trying to prove that other people, who are pushing ambitious global warming legislation, are perhaps unrealistic? Is that what you’re trying to prove?

DINGELL: Not trying to prove anything.

I’m just trying to have people see what is the best approach to address the problem that everybody can see is upon us.

Now, having said that, I’m not trying to make any statements at all. I am saying this. We are going to write the best bill we can in the committee. We’re going to present it to the floor and to the House at the earliest time.

The legislation, as you very well know, is always the art of the possible. And we will get as many votes for the best bill as we possibly can. We will find out whether we can do so and whether the bill is satisfactory, when the process is completed.

This is a fairly evenly divided House, and it is representative of a country of 300 million people who have widely divergent views on the basis of history, jobs, employment, the concerns of their regions. And all of these things are going to come together in whatever it is we’re able to put together when we have completed our legislation.

But the legislation is going to be as complete and as fair as I can make it. And I’m going to try and see to it that everybody puts their pence in the collection box.

And I’m going to try and see that nobody is destituted or bankrupt. And I’m going to try and see to it, at the same time, that everybody not only contributes, but that they are fairly treated. And I have made that point time after time.

HITT: And Mr. Chairman, what would be your expected timetable to begin this process? And do you have a sense of how long it’ll play out through the fall and into next spring?

DINGELL: I think this is probably the question that I’ve gotten more times in my career than anything else that they’ve ever laid upon me.

In a nutshell, what I’m going to do is – and my answer is always this – I’m going to move the best bill I can just as fast as I know how.

SWAIN: Does the fact that there’s a presidential election going on during the time period help or hurt the effort?

DINGELL: Ha. Presidential elections are notorious for their adverse impact on good government in this country. And I think you should anticipate that it will be a major curse and a major blight.

So, in addition to all things else, I’ve got to move at least the blight on legislation and the legislative process. So, I’ve got to move this just as fast as I can, to try and get ahead of the election, which, for all intents and purposes, is going to go into high gear, I would suspect, within the next couple of months.

I would note to you that you should anticipate that in February of next year, you’re going to be looking at a very, very real campaign going on with possibly even the winners of the different primaries, and so forth, decided in February.

SWAIN: Five minutes left.

HITT: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you a question that sort of has a bit more in House, in the Capitol …

DINGELL: Sure.

HITT: … kind of a question.

DINGELL: Sure.

HITT: The speaker created, or moved to create, at the beginning of the year, a special Select Committee on Energy Independence and global climate change. And that caused some heartburn in some quarters of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I think you had some concerns about it.

I wondered, six months after that committee has been up and running, if you have changed your mind about it, or if you have seen any evidence that it’s produced some contribution to the debate on the issues that we’re talking about?

DINGELL: Well, I’ve made, I thought, a very generous observation about this committee. I pointed out that I thought that they were going to be about as useful as feathers on a fish.

And I told everybody who would listen, that I thought that they were either going to be under foot or in the hair of the people who were charged with doing the legislative work.

I have seen nothing that they have done that I, frankly, would want to take credit for. If I were on that committee, I would have long since asked for the privilege of being removed from it, because, quite frankly, I think it’s an embarrassment to everybody.

HITT: Because?

DINGELL: Well, they’ve done nothing. They have no legislative jurisdiction or authority. And they’re just simply running around making speeches and thumping the tub and acting important.

SWAIN: Ed?

ANDREWS: Those are strong words.

The Chairman of that committee, obviously, is Mr. Markey, who is a senior member of your panel also, and at one point in his career was something of an acolyte of yours.

I wondered if you have had a chance to talk with him about it, and if you guys have reached accommodation on your concerns.

DINGELL: Mr. Markey and I are friends. He has a job to do. I have a job to do.

And I have not described any feelings I have for Mr. Markey. I have great respect for him. I have simply described the functions of the committee that he has the misfortune to preside over.

ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman, couldn’t it be said, though, that Mr. Markey and, perhaps, Ms. Pelosi and a number of other Democrats represent the current consensus in the party about where you want to go on these things?

And is it possible that you are out of step with your own caucus?

DINGELL: I would beg you to take a look at the legislation we have reported. I would beg you to take a look at the speeches that I have made on this point. I would beg you to take a look at the legislation that I have written over the years.

I think you will find that I am in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I’m not going to criticize anybody else. I’m simply going to say that what we are doing, what I’m saying, the legislation we have reported out, the legislation we are going to address and the process over which I am going to preside is going to be eminently fair. And it will leave the House the opportunity to come forward with what the House thinks is a good piece of legislation.

My responsibility here is to pass good legislation, conduct the process fairly, see to it that we pass a bill which is bipartisan in character and which could be signed into law by the president.

We have a serious problem with regard to global warming and climate change. And by the great horn spoon, that’s the way it should be done.

HITT: And have you seen any leadership from the president yet on these issues? Has he provided the kind of leadership needed to get a bill this complex and sensitive through the Congress?

DINGELL: Well, I’m not going to be critical of the president. I don’t think that he has been as helpful as he should have been, and I don’t think that he has done as much as he could have done to work with those of us who are seeking to work with him.

But we’ll continue to try, and try and see to it that when the process is done, the president will have had a say that will be important in terms of the final legislative product.

SWAIN: We have about two minutes left. Closing questions for you?

HITT: Mr. Chairman, on the energy bill this summer, are you anticipating that you will have bipartisan support that came out of your committee, with Republicans raising concerns about it?

And I guess this sort of begs the question, where do you think the ground is for bipartisanship on these issues?

DINGELL: Well, I’ve struggled for bipartisanship. If you look, you will find over the history, that under my leadership the Commerce Committee has, on very important questions, like this or Clean Air or Superfund, or major environmental legislation, come out with legislation which, in fact, did have bipartisan support.

I intend to try and produce the same kind of result, which will be bipartisan support on the first bill. We will be working with my Republican colleagues on the committee to achieve that.

And I think that when – and I have assured them that they will have full opportunity to offer any amendment to the next bill that they wish – I think you will see that there will be bipartisan support for the legislation. And that’s my goal.

SWAIN: Mr. Chairman, in closing, I guess I want to ask you the career-capper question.

With regard to the many years that you’ve spent on this committee and the many pieces of important legislation you’ve crafted, how important is it to you personally to see some effort made toward global warming? And how important is this a success for you personally?

DINGELL: I don’t think my personal success or my personal interests matter a bit. I’ve been given the job of presiding over the committee. It’s my job to produce a good piece of legislation.

I am firmly convinced that we need to address the problem of global warming. I am firmly convinced that we need to address the problem of greenhouse gases. And I intend to do so in the best way I possibly can.

But I would remind everybody, this one piece of legislation is not going to solve the problem. We’re going to pass out – we’re going to be dealing with this issue for many years.

And it will be dealt with in Washington, in the legislature of the nation, and the legislatures of the states. It’ll be dealt with in the state capitals. It will dealt with in the White House and the administration.

And if we could all get together and be honest about what we’re doing, put enough money into it, work honestly and conscientiously together in a bipartisan fashion, I believe we can deal with it.

And that is my goal, and that’s what I want. And that’s what I’m going to try and lead the House into doing.

SWAIN: And that sounds like a great summary statement.

Thank you so much for being with is today.

HITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ANDREWS: Thank you.

DINGELL: And I thank you all very much. You were very kind.

SWAIN: Chairman John Dingell joining us from Capitol Hill.

(BREAK)

SWAIN: Greg Hitt of the “Wall Street Journal,” Edmund Andrews of the “New York Times,” just finishing a conversation with Energy Chairman John Dingell from Capitol Hill.

We heard a lot of resolve from the chairman about moving energy legislation forward. But he’s got a lot of hurdles from both his own colleagues on Capitol Hill, and certainly the Senate and White House.

What did you hear there?

HITT: Well, he’s got two sort of roadblocks ahead – roadblocks may not be the precise word – but there are two trigger points that he’s got to get past.

He’s got to get past the floor with the energy bill, where there’s a major question about whether or not the speaker and other Democrats will push a fuel economy amendment into that bill, which he obviously opposes.

And then he’s got to try to turn attention to the broader global warming issue in the fall.

And he has said that he wants bipartisanship on those issues. But I think that his ability to bring that will be tested. Those are issues that inspire big passions across both parties.

SWAIN: Well, not just bipartisanship, but you mention the fractures in his own party.

He made the point that he didn’t want to speak ill of anyone, but his chief critic on the global warming legislation is Ed Markey, whose special committee, you said those were very strong words he used about.

So, how does he go from the kinds of comments he’s using about the committee to forming a relationship that moves the legislation?

ANDREWS: Well, he is correct in saying that he and Ed Markey have worked together for many years. And I think, on some level, they are friends. They’ve got a long history together. They’ve clashed, and they’ve collaborated.

It is nonetheless striking to hear him talk about that panel as being an embarrassment. That is not what I would call collegial. It is, perhaps, vintage John Dingell.

And I think maybe it’s a little bit part of his strategy. He doesn’t mind being fearsome and combative, if that gives him a little more leverage in the ongoing negotiations.

HITT: Feathers on the fish.

ANDREWS: Yes.

SWAIN: Feathers on the fish.

HITT: As he described the committee.

SWAIN: When the chairman was talking about his approach, and talking about how, when you – you never satisfy everyone, but he was going to allow everyone to put their pence in, I think is the way he described it.

HITT: Right.

SWAIN: I couldn’t help but think about the process on the immigration bill, where a grand compromise was sought. And in the end, no one was satisfied, and it died.

How does one, in the current 50-50 climate on Capitol Hill, move key legislation forward like this?

HITT: Well, I mean, it will be a process, if you follow the chairman’s logic through, that brings the stakeholders in the legislation together – the auto companies, the utilities and the other industries – that have a voice in how this bill is shaped.

So, it’ll be a process that’ll give a voice to the stakeholders and to the lawmakers that care about the details. And he’ll have to reach widely across all of those groups.

And I think, when he talks about everybody putting their pence in, that is a recognition that this is a bill that will have costs. It has benefits in ending or curbing the admission of greenhouses gases, which he says the science is – the debate is over on.

But it will have costs.

SWAIN: And the difference in the equation, unlike the immigration bill, it’s not likely to engender the fierce public debate, the phone calls flooding Capitol Hill that ended up influencing …

HITT: Right.

SWAIN: … the outcome on immigration.

ANDREWS: It won’t be quite as passionate as that, but it will have – it will be almost as difficult, in many ways.

And I would say that, if anybody can carry this off, it’s probably John Dingell.

In a way, this problem is similar to the kinds of snarls you have over big tax legislation or other kinds of big energy legislation.

He’s been through this. He’s been through this on a lot of issues – telecommunications overhaul, and so forth.

HITT: The Clean Air Act and …

ANDREWS: The Clear Air Act. Exactly. So, he has been through this.

And if anybody knows how to marshal all the forces and hammer out the deals to make it work, it’s him. But the obstacles are enormous, and he may not succeed.

SWAIN: And his comments about the timetable imposed by the election were interesting, as well.

HITT: Yes. I mean, he talked about the curse or the blight of the presidential election in full swing very shortly. And with presidential candidates likely decided, and potentially decided in early February.

And that is, I think, a deadline that a lot of people have in mind.

At some point, the waters of the presidential campaign rise up and make it very difficult to do anything of substance across party lines on Capitol Hill.

And I think it’s obvious that he’s well aware that he’s working against a tight timeframe.

SWAIN: Well, considering that he brought the outlines of the legislation, we can expect that the House is set to move on this pretty soon.

Thanks to both of you for being here this week and for your questions to the chairman.

HITT: Thank you very much.

ANDREWS: Thank you.

END