TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Auto Lobby's Days Of Strong Congressional Pull May Be In Rear View

ADVERTISEMENT

The Washington Post

Published: February 7, 2009

WASHINGTON - Until very recently, the relationship between automakers and policymakers went something like this: The industry asserted its position, and leaders in Washington largely acquiesced.

In 1971, that played out in a secret meeting in which then-Ford executive Lee Iacocca asked President Richard Nixon for a delay in laws mandating airbags, lest the company have to spend more than $4 billion. The request, captured on Watergate tapes, was granted.

In the early 1990s, the industry's hold on Washington remained firm as President George H.W. Bush sided with it over a push by environmentalists and some members of Congress to improve fuel economy. Automakers argued that smaller, efficient models weren't as safe as large vehicles, and taxpayer money was used to provide evidence: The Transportation Department financed crash tests that pitted small cars against large ones. The first four tests showed small vehicles faring well. Then, the department rammed a 4,000-pound Ford Crown Victoria into a 2,300-pound Suzuki Swift, crushing it.

The department provided Congress only footage of the Suzuki's fate. At the same time, the auto industry rolled out an advertising campaign with a voiceover that said, "Fuel economy is important, but safety is vital."

When, despite their efforts, automakers were unable to defeat increases in fuel economy, they promised to develop more fuel-efficient models - so long as taxpayers footed the bill.

The most expensive effort came in 1993, when Vice President Al Gore asked the Big Three to create a car of the future. More than $1.25 billion in federal funding went to the project, and each company built a prototype that got 80 miles per gallon. But none of the vehicles made it to the assembly line because the automakers said they would cost too much to mass-produce.

As Congress geared up for another attempt to pass new standards in 1999, automakers went after members in their districts - placing newspaper ads that showed men in cowboy hats leaning against pickups and warned readers they may lose their ability to own minivans and big trucks. The campaign worked.

Daniel Becker, an environmental lawyer with the Sierra Club at the time, said he decided it was time to work around Congress. "Having been blocked at every step along the way in Washington, we decided to take it to California," he said.

Leading The Push

It was a change in tactics that sent automakers into a panic. California regulators had a history of forcing changes on the industry - they were the first to require catalytic converters, seat belts and unleaded fuel - that led to nationwide alterations because of the state's large market.

California did not have the power to set fuel economy standards, but Becker reasoned that if the state passed stricter emissions standards, a move allowed under the Clean Air Act, it could appeal to the Environmental Protection Agency for a waiver to enforce the law. It had already requested and received 55 waivers from federal regulators.

Automakers were livid because vehicle emissions can be reduced only if fuel efficiency is improved. "It's like arguing there's a difference between 12 inches and a foot," said Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Becker found a California lawmaker interested in carrying the legislation: Fran Pavley, a Prius-driving former eighth-grade schoolteacher newly elected to the state Assembly.

Pavley and her allies turned to Hollywood for help. Paul Newman called female legislators, compelling them to ask Pavley to make sure they were on the list of supporters. Warren Beatty recruited other lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who contacted moderate Republicans who might not be swayed by movie stars.

On the other side, automakers recruited car dealers, who lobbied lawmakers and persuaded popular Los Angeles radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou to join their cause.

A few days before the bill came up for its first vote, Pavley began receiving death threats. A police detail was assigned to protect her.

The bitter battle ended in 2002 with a victory for Pavley and the environmentalists - by a single vote. It was the first time in decades that the auto industry had failed to block or water down legislation that would force major changes in fuel economy standards.

Automakers responded by going to court.

Lawyers representing the auto industry declined to comment, citing pending appeals. They have argued in court that fuel economy standards must be set by the federal government, not states, and that California regulators have not accurately portrayed the costs. Automakers' studies place the cost between $2,000 and $7,000 per car, compared with California's estimate of between $1,060 and $1,500.

Running Out Of Gas

As other states followed California's lead and the number of cases grew, auto executives returned to Congress in 2006, after losing their first case in California. They complained that the states were creating a patchwork of laws that would make retooling assembly lines impossible.

If fuel efficiency standards must be increased, they said, they wanted Congress to handle it.

But auto executives soon learned that concerns about a reliance on foreign oil, as well as their tactics, had turned some of their congressional allies against them. At a 2007 Capitol Hill luncheon, auto chiefs from GM, Ford and Chrysler, who had asked for a national standard, nevertheless told lawmakers they needed to scale back their demands or the industry would be decimated.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who had sided with the industry for years, had had enough. "I think this issue is over," Dorgan told the executives.

Not quite. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., stepped in on the industry's behalf and persuaded lawmakers to weaken the bill. The final version called for raising the average fuel economy from 27 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The California law requires autos to get 43.7 mpg by 2016.

But Dingell's action cost him. To get his way, he crossed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and though Pelosi did not take a public position on the committee leadership battle between Dingell and Waxman, she also did not step in to defend the longtime chairman.

"I have found a fair amount of unhappiness means you are doing your job," Dingell said in an interview about his role as an auto industry advocate. "There are many opinions, but just one set of facts. I went with the facts."

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT