Rep. John Dingell has written an interesting piece in today's issue of The Hill. Dingell discusses the virtue of CAFE standards (the minimum miles per gallon requirements automakers must meet) and the need to combat global climate change. However, the article reflects the Michigan Democrat's tension between progressive environmental policy and appeasing his automaker constituents. Dingell touts the success of the CAFE program (which he helped create) but offers more questions than solutions in regulating carbon emissions: Are CAFE standards in their current form still the most effective way to achieve their stated objective? Further still, has the objective changed? Can a regulatory structure created in the 1970s evolve in such a way as to combat a 21st century challenge with 21st century technologies? He then goes on to warn Congress against rushing into any climate change legislation, and points out that his Energy and Commerce Committee will hold nine hearings in the month of March on energy independence and climate change. The article comes the same day as an Energy and Air Quality subcommittee hearing on President Bush's CAFE reform proposal. According to Reuters, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the cap-and-trade approach which would avoid actually raising fuel efficiency standards. Congressional wonkery aside, the reality is improved CAFE standards would mitigate carbon emissions and save drivers money. With measures of American fuel economy in decline, it is past time Congress get its act together and improve federal fuel economy standards.

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Reg policy articles this time: Congress Holds Hearings on Bush's Changes to Regulatory Process FDA Drug Approval Process under Scrutiny

Yesterday, two House subcommittees held back-to-back oversight hearings investigating President Bush's recent amendments to Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning and Review. The first hearing, held by the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, delved into the specific impacts of the amendments.

• OMB Watch's own Rick Melberth framed the amendments as the next step in a disturbing trend where the White House has adopted tools to delay regulation.
• Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) wondered how the marketplace incentivized certain protections.
• Witness and former OIRA administrator Sally Katzen criticized the administration for exerting influence over agency guidance documents.
• And subcommittee Chair Brad Miller (D-NC) chastised the influence of the Presidential appointees who will serve as Regulatory Policy Officers:

If an RPO makes the wrong decision for the wrong reason, we're not going to know about it. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the ranking member on the subcommittee, exhibited a lack of understanding of the issue at large. He claimed the amendments do not require "additional hurdles to be overcome" and he muddled the separate issues of market failures and cost-benefit analyses. He left abruptly in the middle of the hearing. The second hearing, held by the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, focused on action Congress could take. Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez (D-CA) both asked witnesses what Congress could do. While Columbia University law professor Peter Strauss admitted Congress's options are limited, Curtis Copeland from the Congressional Research Service pointed out that Congress may declare that Executive Orders not hold any legal sway. Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) is ready to "wage war" on the "institutional combat" against the legislative branch. Read more from The Pump Handle here.

Integrity in Science Watch is reporting that industry think tank AEI is offering scientists $10,000 to refute climate change science: