WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2007
Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming
Speaker Forcing Legislative Action On Climate Change
-
Photo
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., is moving to create a special committee to recommend legislation for cutting greenhouse gases. (AP)
-
Interactive
Global Warming
The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
-
Interactive
100-Hour Agenda
A look at legislation new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wants the chamber to pass swiftly.
-
Face The Nation
Madam Speaker
Watch an exclusive interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Face The Nation.
She's moving to create a special committee to recommend legislation for cutting greenhouse gases, most likely to be chaired by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a Democratic leadership aide said Wednesday.
Markey has advocated raising mileage standards for cars, trucks and SUVs and is one of the House's biggest critics of oil companies and U.S. automakers,
Pelosi has discussed the proposal with at least two Democratic committee chairmen: fellow Californian Henry Waxman of Oversight and Government Reform, and West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, who heads the Natural Resources panel. Pelosi intends to announce the move this week, said the leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because not all of the details have been worked out.
The move, to some degree, would sidestep two of the House's most powerful Democratic committee bosses, in shaping what's expected to be at least a yearlong debate on global warming:
Rahall said he had spoken with Pelosi about the idea of a new select committee. Rahall's panel oversees energy development on public lands, including coal, oil and natural gas as well as cleaner, non-carbon sources such as geothermal and windmills.
"I've been assured that no legislative jurisdiction would be taken away from any committee," Rahall said. "No legislative responsibility would be shifted from any committee."
As chair of Energy and Commerce, Dingell oversees the Clean Air Act — and would have the most to lose by letting another panel take the lead. The panel's staff chief, Dennis Fitzgibbons, a former auto company lobbyist, said Dingell was philosophically opposed to Pelosi's plan.
"He has always been cool to the idea, because it undermines the fundamental idea for establishing committees in the first place, which is to acquire expertise in a certain area," Fitzgibbons said.
Dingell, asked about the new committee, said, "I have not been officially informed."
Waxman, like Markey a one-time protege of Dingell, said that Pelosi discussed the idea of a special committee with him several days ago. He, too, is a skeptic.
"I believe the existing committees can deal effectively with global warming," he said Wednesday. "But I can also understand why the speaker believes it's important to highlight this issue."
A new committee would give Pelosi a vehicle to push a regulatory scheme for reducing greenhouse gases and pit her against President Bush, who plans to outline his global warming approach in his State of the Union next week. Mr .Bush has repeatedly opposed any mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, instead advocating voluntary approaches and research on new technologies. Pelosi has supported mandatory reductions with specific target dates for achieving them.
"It's an issue that the speaker thinks is critical to address," said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.
Democratic officials said the committee would be responsible for advising the best legislative approaches while the actual bill-writing duties would likely still be done by Dingell's and Rangel's committees. Among the topics being negotiated are how long the committee should exist and how broad its focus should be, since global climate change affects virtually everything.
Pelosi hasn't shied from taking on other powerful House Democrats. She endorsed the losing effort by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to become majority leader over Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. She also has approved of six-year term limits for committee chairmen over objections from Dingell and other senior Democrats.
She also has a history with Dingell, who backed Hoyer over Pelosi in a 2001 race for the party whip's post. Pelosi backed a Democratic primary challenger to Dingell's re-election the following year.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
G8 Summit On Environment
-
Video
A Presidential Mistep
-
Video
Washington Unplugged 7-9-09
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 86 CommentsI agree, Time's person of the year!
Posted by bildooreilly at 01:14 PM : Jan 18, 2007
That's the most intelligent thing you can contribute to the discussion? Why even bother?
Posted by bildooreilly at 01:14 PM : Jan 18, 2007
That's the most intelligent thing you can contribute to the discussion? Why even bother?
Posted by hungry1968 at 01:20 PM : Jan 18, 2007
What can you expect? He's a Nader supporter.
What's up with all of nancy's freaky hand gestures? Oh yeah she's in the same secret society elitist cult as the rest of them.
Posted by bildooreilly at 01:14 PM : Jan 18, 2007
That's the most intelligent thing you can contribute to the discussion? Why even bother?
Posted by hungry1968 at 01:20 PM : Jan 18, 2007
The science is in and it's overwhelming. Global warming is happening, it's going to be devistating to economies and populations, and it's being caused by human activity. It's not a political football. It's a very dangerous reality that will increasingly effect the survival of all species including our own.
We can either lead the world in developing new technologies that curb or eliminate the causes of global warming or we can follow the world and suffer the consequences. It's just that simple...lead or follow.
Nader's heart is in the right place and he's absolutely committed to what he believes. Unfortunately, he would have gotten absolutely nothing done if he had been elected.
Posted by bildooreilly at 01:52 PM : Jan 18, 2007
Bil we agree on much and disagree with little, but the two party system is here for our lifetime at least, so pick a side because supporting no one is just the same as supporting the republicans and you know it.
That's why I replied to your post.
Instead of impeaching the CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT
they now are GINNING UP
another way to TAX the AMERICAN PUBLIC
so the GOVERNMENT can spend the
NEW FOUND MONEY
at their FAMILY BUSINESSES
TAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAX
TAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAX
TAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAX
TAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAX
TAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAXTAX
It is for the CHILDREN...!
ALL WHILE
the CHINESE and other THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES
Belch TONS and TON of POLLUTANTS into the EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE
Why don't we just burn another 3 million acres of rain forest...
Here is an IDEA
Start a TAX on
the CHINESE other THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES...
Government is essentially corrupt, and the bigger it is the more corrupt it is, and democrats and republicans both love big government, because they're totally corrupt.
------------------------
bildooreilly
Nader's heart is in the right place and he's absolutely committed to what he believes. Unfortunately, he would have gotten absolutely nothing done if he had been elected.
Posted by frankly6 at 01:55 PM : Jan 18, 2007
+ report this comment
Posted by bildooreilly at 01:14 PM : Jan 18, 2007
I often wonder what the heck she is thinking
about when she looks in the mirror
the picture above makes me think of
MOMMY DEAREST (movie)
Yes, MOMMY DEAREST....!
You want to talk about misuse of tax dollars - where are you on the tax breaks big oil - the most profitable business in america right now - gets - talk about spending the money on the family business.
Start watching something other than FOX news for a change.
And even if it wasn't the right treaty to sign, why were we not leading the charge to find a fair and better solution? We were fighting over whether Clinton got blown instead. Its disgusting - and you want to quibble over Pelosi trying to get some movement on the issue out of the do nothing House? Please - stuff it back in the horse.
I am less concerned with the cost of a gallon of gas than I am about the possibility that florida will be half under water when the ice caps disappear. I suspect that you and anyone else here that is priveledged enough to own a computer and have this discussion should be able to see that frankly - we have everything we could want right here and now. You have clean water, you can read, work, live your life in peace, feed your family.
Not having a big plasma screen HDTV is no reason to bi tch about the price of gas going up.
Hell - I'd pay twice the price if the money wasn't going to big oil but to programs that help clean up this mess.
I would like Pelosi to help the world RIGHT NOW, she could reign in the Pharaceuticals and put a stop to the genocide they are commiting AND a total ban on Aspartame and NutraSweet. That would a good start in helping the people of this world survive.
This is just a classic form of ruling by fear. And as long as people are content with "watching the shadow puppets on the cave wall" then we will see no end to the list of things we should all be afraid of.
Btw it's been the coldest January in over 15 years in Southern California.
Me, I almost don't really CARE what perspective you have (within reason) on some given topic as long as you are honest and consistent and can defend it. But instead you get the "everything bad in the world is Bush's fault" side vs. the "everything bad in the world is the liberal's fault".
It's like these people are children. Of course, since there's no way to know anyone's age - who knows, maybe half of these folks really ARE children.
Posted by frankly6 at 01:51 PM : Jan 18, 2007
Time to turn off the sun, I guess....
This is just a group af flaming liberals who want use to belive them and not look for the facts ourselfs.Wake up America if we keep listening to the liberals we will no longer have a free country we will live life their way not what our founding fathers wanted we were founded to have a free country under the rules of the people not the liberal courts who tell us that we can't say the pledge or say in God we trust and that we have to look at other countrys and Obey their laws and have them for US.
The science is in and it's overwhelming. Global warming is happening, it's going to be devistating to economies and populations, and it's being caused by human activity. It's not a political football. It's a very dangerous reality that will increasingly effect the survival of all species including our own.
We can either lead the world in developing new technologies that curb or eliminate the causes of global warming or we can follow the world and suffer the consequences. It's just that simple...lead or follow.
"We can either lead the world in developing new technologies that curb or eliminate the causes of global warming or we can follow the world and suffer the consequences. It's just that simple...lead or follow."
Or, we can apply our resources to learning how to ADAPT to INEVITABLE climate changes, instead of WASTING BILLIONS of dollars on trying to prevent something we have no control over.
Everyone would agree we should have alternatives to fossil fuel, but how does the "science" explain the fact that the world had a global warming events in the 10th and 11th centuries that were warmer than today? The truth is the "science" completely avoids any of the data from that time period, because the "scientists" don't want to detract from the results they are pushing.
Global Warming is junk science used for the purpose of political manipulation.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 86 Comments