Why is the DOT lobbying congress for the auto makers trying to stop the emissions laws from being stricter?

Question

Isn't the DOT funded by tax dollars? Why would they be concerned about the auto makers?

House oversight chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote Transportation Secretary Mary Peters today requesting information about “apparent efforts by the Department to lobby Members of Congress to oppose efforts by California and other states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.” In a voicemail message received by a member of Congress, an aide at the Transportation Department acts as an auto lobbyist, urging the member to take a stand on tougher state emission standards because “‘this would greatly impact the auto facilities’ in the member’s district.”

Answer 1

Because they will have to spend millions if not more to implement emission free or low emission technology. I think it is easier for them to halt these laws from being "imposed".

Answer 2

The emissions laws are already strict enough.
We don't need more restrictions. Its already hard enough on regular working folks to get a car inspected especially with the automakers putting a monopoly on it. Half the time now a car won't pass inspection if generic parts are used instead of the dealers parts. Thats blackmail. The penalties are already out of sight. They need to do something different and not pick on the people who are forced to drive a gas powered vehicle that came along before all these changes were made. Thats called Highway Robbery.

Answer 3

The conflict of interest is obvious. Whether it's legal, will probably be the subject of hearings.
The portion of this which amazes me is that we are trying to achieve a level of responsible fossil fuel usage, while portions of the world are doing the opposite.
In actuality the emissions laws have been a boon to new auto sales. Older cars, unable to pass emissions are junked. The short coming in the process, is that it takes more pollution to produce a new car, than the old car would have emitted, if it's life time were to have been extended.

Answer 4

Mainly because the US automakers are way behind on
making engines that pollute less, this law would put them
at an even greater disadvantage with the Japanese car
makers, most of the Japanese vehicles already meet
our proposed smog standards.

US automakers say that labor costs are to high, yet Toyota
has a few very profitable plants in the US, they are paying
the same wages, produce less greenhouse gases and
are making a solid profit.

American automakers need to wake up before they
no longer have anything to wake up to.

Answer 5

This is simply another case of a government entity that has drifted so far from the performance of its intended job and central focus that it now is "in bed" with the people and industries that it was meant to regulate and oversee !! It is happening wholesale throughout the Federal government and has even found its way into the state governments !! There are dozens of these types of "buddy" deals going on all over the country -- where the enforcement and regulating authorities are now advocating FOR the very people that they were intended TO regulate---- the EPA is another PRIME example --- within recent years --- they have lobbied FOR the lowering of all kinds of standards on air and water !!!
THIS IS THE CLEAREST SIGN OF ALL THAT THE AGENCIES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE VERY BUSINESSES THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED TO REGULATE !!!!!!!!!!! Time for a MAJOR overhaul and a MASSIVE layoff at the top !!!!!!!

Answer 6

One must remember the auto industry for years fought against improving windshields-though over a million people died or were horribly mutilated by the glass shattering in accidents.
They have ONLY their own interests at heart and always have.

Answer 7

truthfully. on your 2nd element, i agree appropriate to the cultural subject. I propose permit's additionally undergo in concepts it somewhat is extra handy to purchase a gun than it somewhat is to vote in this united states of america. Which i think of is a topic with balloting. will we prefer stricter gun administration regulations? in the beginning all, no longer any that criminalize inner maximum possession. yet frankly (and unpopularly in TX) i could be advantageous with updating the registry on attack weapons, particularly modernizing it. weapons exterior shotguns/rifles are human killing machines. it will be complicated to get one.

Answer 8

Have you noticed? General Motors has lost billions. Ford Motor Company has lost billions. Chrysler has lost billions. Would you like to put all US auto makers out of business? The companies are fighting for their very lives.

When you are fighting for your life, everything is fair.

Besides, I like your pic.

Answer 9

FROM: NANCY E. MCFADDEN

SUBJECT: Anti-lobbying Restrictions


The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you and members of your staff of applicable restrictions on lobbying activity by Department of Transportation (DOT) employees and recipients of DOT funds. This memorandum discusses the proscriptions on lobbying activities imposed by federal law and provides general guidelines to assure compliance with those laws. It also contains examples of specific activities which are and are not prohibited. This memorandum is particularly timely as we continue to implement the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) and Congress considers the Coast Guard, FAA, and RSPA reauthorization legislative proposals.

Prohibitions on lobbying activities are found in a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C § 1913, commonly known as the Anti-Lobbying Act; and provisions routinely contained in annual appropriations acts restricting the use of appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes" to support or defeat pending legislation. In addition, TEA 21 established separate lobbying restrictions on NHTSA's activities with state and local legislatures, 49 U.S.C. § 301051. Section 1913 prohibits the use of appropriated funds directly or indirectly, "to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device" intended to influence a member of Congress in acting upon legislation, before or after its introduction. Violators are subject to a fine of not more than $500, imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, and removal from office.

The DOT Appropriations Act of 2000 contains a general provision, section 326, which restates the provisions of the Anti-Lobbying Act, and for the first time, also applies the restrictions to activities directed to state legislatures. Unlike the Anti-Lobbying Act, section 326 restricts such activities only if the activities occur , after the introduction of a bill or resolution in Congress or a state legislature. The Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000 contains the routine "publicity or propaganda purposes" general provision restricting the use of appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes" to support or defeat pending legislation before Congress.

The Department of Justice and the General Accounting Office have consistently interpreted section 1913 and the routine provisions in the appropriations acts as applying to and prohibiting "grass roots" lobbying encouraging third parties members, of special interest groups or the general public, to contact members of Congress in support opposition to a legislative matter: We believe that this interpretation now also applies to activities directed to State legislatures that are covered by the routine provision in the DOT Appropriations Act of 2000.

Neither section 1913 nor the provisions in appropriations acts prevents an employee, while acting in an official capacity, from communicating with members of Congress, or state legislatures to: 1) provide information or 2) solicit support for the Administration's position on matters before Congress or State legislatures2, whether or not the contact is invited and whether or not specific legislation is pending. Nor is it improper for an employee to provide informational background and material to the public to explain policies and positions. When providing oral and written information to the public about Administration positions or policies, employees may not, however, ask recipients to contact members of Congress or state legislatures. In addition, unsolicited distribution of public documents containing Administration positions also must be analyzed carefully. Since many of these efforts are fact specific, please consult with my office or your Office of Chief Counsel before undertaking any major mass information campaigns.

The following examples are intended to provide general guidance for the more frequently encountered contacts and activities.

Under current anti-lobbying law, DOT employees MAY:



communicate directly with Congress and members of State legislatures and respective staff in support of Administration or department positions. The prohibitions do not apply to such direct communications. Under the TEA-21 provision, however, NHTSA employees are prohibited from communicating with State or local legislators in a way that is specifically designed to urge the legislator to favor or oppose a specific pending measure. The TEA 21 provision permits NHTSA employees to provide written or oral testimony advocating for or against a specific pending legislative measure in response to an invitation from a member of the State or local legislative body or a State executive office.


communicate with the public though public speeches, appearances and published writings to support and explain Administration or department positions.

communicate individually with members of the public to inform them of Administration or department positions and to promote those positions, but only to the extent that such communications do not contravene the "grass roots" lobbying prohibition.
Under current anti-lobbying law, DOT employees MAY NOT:


engage in "grass roots" lobbying campaigns encouraging third parties, members of special interest groups or the general public, to contact members of Congress or State legislatures in support of or in opposition to a position.
The determination of whether a proposed course of action involves a violation of federal law will require an analysis of all relevant facts. If you have any questions concerning these restrictions, please contact your Office of Chief Counsel or this office for advice.


cc: Chief Counsels

Answer 10

Please. Cars and gas are expensive enough. I hope they do stop it.