Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHow the White House Worked to Scuttle California's Climate Law
WASHINGTON - President Bush's transportation secretary, Mary Peters, with White House approval, personally directed a lobbying campaign to urge governors and two dozen House members to block California's first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.
The e-mails show Peters worked closely with the top opponents in Congress of California's emissions law and sought out governors from auto-producing states, who were seen as likely to oppose the state's request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allow the new rules to go into effect.
"The administration is trying to stack the deck against California's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, wrote Monday to the White House. "It suggests that political considerations - not the merits of the issue - will determine how EPA acts."
Waxman released the e-mails, which are available on the committee's Web site, along with his letter to the White House. The documents show that the idea to launch the lobbying effort started with Peters.
The secretary "asked that we develop some ideas asap about facilitating a pushback from governors (esp. D's)" - Democrats - "and others opposed to piecemeal regulation of emissions, as per CA's waiver petition," Jeff Shane, the Transportation Department's undersecretary for policy, wrote to top staffers on May 22.
It was not an unbiased outreach effort: Peters targeted officials who agreed with her agency's opposition to California's landmark effort to regulate auto emissions.
"Are we making any headway in identifying sympathetic governors?" Shane wrote on May 23. "(Peters) asked me about them again this morning."
The release of the e-mails comes at an awkward time for the White House. President Bush was scheduled to meet Monday night with global leaders in New York to convince them he is serious about the United States' efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He has convened a meeting in Washington this week to talk about climate change with the world's 15 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.
The Department of Transportation and the White House responded to Waxman's letter Monday with statements arguing that they did nothing wrong by urging lawmakers and governors to oppose California's efforts to curb emissions.
"Our efforts to inform elected officials about the petition before EPA were legal, appropriate and consistent with our long-held position on this issue," the Transportation Department said. "For over 30 years, the Department has supported a single, national fuel economy standard as part of our effort to save fuel, ensure safety, preserve the environment and protect the economy."
"With respect to California's request to be allowed to set its own standards, there are a wide variety of strongly held views across the country," said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "Outreach by federal officials to state government counterparts and members of Congress on issues of major national policy is an appropriate and routine component of policy development."
But California officials, including one of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's top environmental aides, said the e-mails suggest the Bush administration is working behind the scenes to deny California's waiver. The EPA is expected to make its decision by December.
"We're deeply disappointed to hear of confirmed reports of back-room maneuvering to deny our request," said Mary Nichols, who chairs the state's Air Resources Board. "We will move ahead with our lawsuit if the EPA fails to act in the next few weeks."
California has taken the initial steps to sue the federal government if it turns down the state's request for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act that would approve California's plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The e-mails paint a picture of the administration working closely with Michigan's powerful congressional delegation, which strongly opposes California's new rules. U.S. automakers fear a huge drop in sales if California and 12 other states implement the new rules - which would cut emissions by 30 percent by 2016.
In one e-mail, Peters asks if she needs to call Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., who was rallying opposition in Congress to California's proposal.
"Do I need to touch base with Knollenberg to coordinate our efforts?" she wrote in a June 7 e-mail to her deputy chief of staff, Simon Gros.
"His staff is also going to ping other members of the automotive caucus for us," Gros replied. "My staff this morning called just about every auto-friendly member of this issue."
Gros, in an interview with House investigators, said Peters personally called two to four governors to urge them to lobby the EPA. The Transportation Department would not identify the governors, but one cited in the e-mails was Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat.
The documents also reveal that Peters sought - and received - approval for her effort from the White House. Her executive assistant, Sandy Snyder, reported in a May 25 e-mail that the White House Council on Environmental Quality's chief of staff, Marty Hall, approved the idea.
Hall was "OK with (Peters) making calls," Snyder wrote.
Snyder added that Hall had spoken the day before with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson - suggesting he may have known of the effort to lobby his agency. Johnson, at a Senate hearing in July, said he'd talked with Peters only about extending the comment period for the waiver request.
Waxman has suggested the actions could violate the Anti-Lobbying Act, which restricts the ability of federal employees or agencies to lobby. The law prohibits "grassroots lobbying" - efforts to get members of the public to lobby Congress.
The Transportation Department has said it did not engage in grassroots lobbying. But Thomas Susman, an attorney at Ropes & Gray in Washington and co-author of "The Lobbying Manual," said contacting governors - who are called "grasstops," in lobbying parlance - is usually considered grassroots lobbying.
"In my experience, there is no distinction in the statute or any interpretations between governors and the public," he said.
But Peters could have a legal out: The president, vice president and Cabinet members can't be barred from speaking out or instigating grassroots actions on issues of public concern, Susman said.
The law is enforced if a "substantial" amount of money - $50,000 - is spent on lobbying, and it's unlikely the Justice Department would go after members of the administration, he said.
Waxman said the debate over the legality of the actions misses the point. Peters could have submitted comments to the EPA, stating her views, he said.
"Instead ... she apparently sought and received White House approval to use taxpayer funds to mount a lobbying campaign designed to inject political considerations into the decision," Waxman said.
Online resources
Find the e-mails released by Rep. Henry Waxman
links.sfgate.com/ZXF
Status of law
What California wants: A waiver from federal law that would allow the state to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
Who decides: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
When: A decision is expected by December.
To comment: If you want to weigh in on the lobbying effort against California's greenhouse gas emissions law, call the U.S. Department of Transportation at (202) 366-4000 or e-mail dot.comments@dot.gov. Or call the White House's comment line at (202) 456-1111 or e-mail comments@whitehouse.gov.
Efforts to block California's climate rules
E-mails from top Transportation Department officials show that Secretary Mary Peters directed an effort to block California's first-in-the-nation regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Here are excerpts. Note: Secretary Peters is often referred to as "S1" in the e-mails:
"S1 asked that we develop some ideas asap about facilitating a pushback from governors (esp. D's) and others opposed to piecemeal regulation of emissions, as per CA's waiver petition. She has heard that such objections could have an important effect on the way Congress looks at the issue."
- e-mail from Jeff Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy, to top staffers on May 22
"Marty Hall ... OK with S1 making calls, spoke with (EPA Administrator) Steve Johnson yesterday."
- e-mail from Sandy Snyder, executive assistant to Peters after getting approval from Marty Hall, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, May 25
"Tyler/Jenny mentioned yesterday that they thought the WH had approved calls to the Gov's on the issue I had discussed with Administrator Johnson. If so, I should get those worked in today or tomorrow."
- e-mail from Peters to her chief of staff, Robert Johnson, May 31
"Mary - I spoke with Tyler and Husein after your call with Gov. Granholm today. They said that you'd like to call some members of the MI delegation on the waiver issue."
- e-mail to Peters from Simon Gros, her deputy chief of staff, referencing a conversation with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and potential calls to Michigan lawmakers, June 4
"S1 wanted me to touch base with you asap regarding the California Clean Air Act Waiver request. She would like us to contact Members (of Congress)."
- e-mail from Katherine Stusrud, policy assistant to Peters, to Gros, June 7
"Do I need to touch base with Knollenberg to coordinate our efforts?"
- e-mail from Peters to Gros, June 7, 2007, referring to Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., who was rallying House members to oppose California's rules
"If you'd like but he is very much on point. His staff is also going to ping other members of the automotive caucus for us. My staff this morning called just about every auto-friendly member of this issue."
- e-mail reply from Gros to Peters, June 7
"Simon - we are a bit concerned about the conversation on this task ... appears to sound more like lobbying. So we want to be careful on what exactly we say. ... I have already made a bunch of calls ... looking back, I may have said more that I should have."
- e-mail from Heidah Shahmoradi, special assistant for governmental affairs at the DOT, to Gros, June 7
Source: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
© 2007 San Francisco Chronicle
19 Comments so far
Show Allezeflyer,
thanks for blowing some wind in my sails. I am all over that national initiative for democracy. I'm going to give time and coin to it. Best idea I've heard to move from despair to empowerment and some real solutions based on real democracy. On that note, I notice they just did a facelift on the web site.
I'd like to pick up on andersdl's point @ 1:48 pm.
US corporations no longer compete--except in the halls of Congress where their lobbyists compete with each other for their share of earmarks and the corporate welfare spending. Investing in lobbyists gives a much better, more reliable return than R & D.
CEOs seem to be interested only in next quarter's earnings, and seem to have no idea what's in their company's long term interest.
genaman September 26th, 2007 6:41 am
"United we can at the very least curb all environmental and ecological problem in an instant.WILL WE?You do not need a leader. Lead yourself."
Unfortunately conservation isn't the answer. Not only are populations increasing that make conservation only a hold the line strategy, but we also now have the emerging economies in China, India, and other places. Their increased use of personal transportation pretty much negates the effectiveness of conservation measures on our part.
We could solve the problem not only of global warming, but also of decreasing supplies of the world's oil and all of it's problems, oil wars, scarcity induced inflation, etc., by entering crash program to develop hydrogen.
Hydrogen to use not only as a transportation fuel but also as an emission free way to heat our homes, do our cooking, and heat our water which accounts for 45% of global warming gases.
Lobo Gris
So how many vehicles do you have in your Garage? When was the last time you took a bus?
Has anyone really notice that the roads we drive all these vehicles on are overcrowded?
How many of you car pool? There must be very few,since the idea of mass transit was reborn in the 1970's yet all I see is more personal vehicles.Again the problem is each and everyone of us. Devided we might as well write of the human species from this planet. United we can at the very least curb all environmental and ecological problem in an instant.WILL WE?You do not need a leader. Lead yourself.
is ther no-one in the govt. that isn't a corporate stooge, have these people no soul? The building's on fire and all these bast**** can do is add fuel.
"For over 30 years, the Department has supported a single, national fuel economy standard as part of our effort to save fuel, ensure safety, preserve the environment and protect the economy." This statement by the Department of Transportation is a lie. In recent years they have refused to enforce any standards and have been taken to court for not doing so. Perhaps it would have been a true statement if they had said for over 30 years the Department had supported . . .
Good idea mirf59. But why stop with the executive branch? Congress is just as bad, and so are the Supremes. Why not adopt a grassroots democracy, a direct democracy such as the one that has given the Swiss no wars in over 150 years and the highest per capita income in the world? It's practically bribe proof. We might do it by incorporating We the People as I described in other posts. Or simply by adopting the referendum as Mike Gravel suggests.
Good one, mirf59. Only ingredient missing in your plan is honest men in Congress who will live up to their oath to defend the Constitution.
Blame Bush and his cronies, not the victims! Remember Rumsfled on 9-11! and the Two Coups d'etat of 2000 and 2004!
We need to keep our criticisms focused on the criminals and not the naive victims who let them in the door, and now hopefully know better.
Besides, I don't know one single person who voted for Bush, do you, Settgast?
Blocking this bill is clearly just one more attempt to block profit-losses for oil companies. Period.
The Japanese have had far more fuel-efficient vehicles for years, and that technology is blocked from being implemented the United States because the Bushnazis and Friends' Öl Kompanies don't want to lose profits or power.
Electrical motor vehicle technology is DECADES overdue because of the POG (Party of Greed) hierarchy.
As a United States California American resident, I believe that restricting greenhouse gasses will cause a lack of maps in the South African countries. And this Atlas-lack, such as the education of Iraqi and Austrian neighbors to our left and right, will further the melting of polar bear ice caps and such, which will be directly related to the forested tree of productions, which ultimately aids in the decline of advanced map reading by U.S. American citizens, due to lack of wooden pulp fiberous tiny pieces for paper production, such as (for our children).
Way to go, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, George W. Bush, and the United States Military Industrial Congressional Complex (who oversees it all).
The United States American citizens, such as, have collectively had it with all of you...and that goes for the Australian Austrians who now reside in South American Africa (for our children).
Love,
mom
Public servants working on behalf of corporate greed, as if this surprises anyone. Look, you make policy that favors the rich, you don't concern yourself with the lungs of the huddled masses.
Hopefully all the monkeys will resign when Chimp leaves town.
Our leaders are evil. Today at the UN Bush talked about those killing innocent women and children to enforce their ideology. He meant the people he named terrorists. Little did he know he know he was also talking about himself. Whether killing Iraqis or the environment, he and his cronies represent evil as we have not know for a long time.
Bush and Cheney have been fighting to extend the powers of the Executive Branch. I think everyone could agree on that point.
I wonder what the argument is against the exact polar opposite approach -- elimination of the Office of the President of the United States of America and allocation of the powers currently enjoyed by that office to the other branches.
In short, why do we need a President at all? As memory serves, George Washington was a reluctant first President and doubted that the office was necessary at all.
This raises the question -- what power is unique to the President that is best exercised by a single individual? I argue it may be exactly none. Zero.
I wonder if the whole nation might be better off with Congress having 100% control over the military, by appointing the leaders of the Defense Department, including all the top generals.
A Secretary of State could be the figurehead to represent the country in matters between States, reporting to Congress.
The only drawback I can imagine is that it might be necessary to act fast in the event of war. In that case, it would not be practical to wait for Congress to deliberate every tactical decision.
But, I'm sure there could be some way around this problem. Congress could appoint a Commander-in-Chief or retain the Office of President only with responsibilty over the defense department.
All other powers of the President should be stripped away as they are consistently abused -- the enforcement of the law through the FBI, Department of Justice, veto power over legislation, the introduction of legislation, etc.
I think Bush-Cheney have forced the issue, and We The People should put all the powers of the Executive Branch on the table for review.
Bumper sticker seen today:
Support Our Troops
We Need Them To
Overthrow Our Government
don't hold your breath
Posting here unfortunately is just venting-
Maybe if we all thought of everwhere else we could post
Whenever the need to improve automobiles has arisen, here is what happens:
1) The US auto industry mobilizes their attorneys, congressional delegation and lobbyists to maintain the status quo.
2) Honda and Toyota mobilize their engineers to meet or exceed the need for product improvement.
Honda and Toyota have been the winners at every step of the way.
California is the world's fifth largest economy and WILL win against the Bush Regime on this issue, thereby dealing the final blow needed to put the US auto industry out of business. As they have in the past, the US auto industry will blame their own employees and the environmentalists for their demise even though all the evidence will point to the US auto industry's unwillingness to change as the real reason for their demise.
these 'auto-friendly' people are despicable and total sh*t.
53 cubic MILES of water melted away from Greenland last year. 1 cu. mi. of water could supply L.A. for 4 months. When Greenland completely melts, in a few years, oceans will rise 20 to 23 feet! And hundreds more feet when the poles finish melting.
Why Blame Bush?
Just another unprecedented atrocities by this arrogant zealot and his henchmen. They include stolen elections, disastrous war on our environment through manipulation of science, intimidation of congress with unprecedented character assassinations (ie branding a triple amputee Viet Vet for supporting an inquiry into the causes of 9/11), a grossly misguided war, & the list goes on.
>
> Blame falls mainly on the apathetic populace who voted for Bush, despite all warning signs-- and congress for standing by while his team inflected more damage on our republic, and the world, than any administration in our history.
>
December 11, 2000. we never forget
the day that will live in infamy.
We are united.
Go Cali! This administration is not doing a thing for the world. What the hell do they think they "are" doing? This administration is all criminal and self-serving. I think we should give a protest in all 50 states. Its too bad we couldn't give a "no driving day" protest. That would be a big punch in the pocketbook. All that lost revenue. We have to punch in the pocketbook for everything if we want to be heard. These a-holes don't listen to anything else.