Just a reminder: John Dingell is a power-drunk, abusive bully

During the 1980s Dingell interfered constantly in federal agencies' domestic policy-making, as well as their attempts to hammer out international agreements on the regulation of agricultural biotechnology under the auspices of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Dingell and his committee's investigators harassed scientists from various regulatory agencies (of whom I was one), although the congressional staffers had no understanding of the subject area and were, in fact, lobbying against both a sound scientific approach and U.S. interests. Research and development still bear the scars. In carrying out the committee's oversight role over the FDA, the imperious Dingell acted as a kind of self-appointed Grand Inquisitor. He and his staff continually summoned agency officials to humiliating and abusive hearings and demanded that they produce mountains of documents on unrealistically short deadlines. Committee staffers even appeared personally and unannounced at FDA headquarters and helped themselves to documents that the agency (and federal law) considered to be confidential business information and, therefore, off limits. Dingell was a master of the politics of personal destruction. In acrimonious McCarthy-esque hearings, he leveled vile and untrue accusations against prominent scientists, university administrators and business executives, relying on his congressional immunity to avoid being sued for slander. He managed to bring down two eminent university heads -- David Baltimore of Rockefeller University and Donald Kennedy of Stanford -- who, although eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, lost their presidencies due to his mendacious allegations. Dingell showed little appreciation of or respect for the constitutional separation of powers. In 2007 he demanded that the CEO of drug company AmgenAMGN>+1.44%"cease all direct-to-consumer advertising and physician incentives" related to the company's anti-anemia drugs Epogen and Aranesp because of concerns that "when used at higher than recommended doses, [they] appear to cause increases in blood clots, seem to grow tumors and are associated with significantly higher mortality rates than placebo," until the FDA is able to determine whether any measures "need to be taken to protect the public from unnecessary risks to human life from these products." (He made an almost identical request to Johnson & JohnsonJNJ>+0.53%about that company's similar anti-anemia drug Procrit.) Such demands are properly the realm of regulation by the Executive Branch of the government -- namely, the FDA.

At the same time, Reynolds filed documents showing that Dingell had personally written at least seven letters to regulatory officials opposing the Gibraltar Bay project, and even wrote one to Made In Detroit's lender, then Standard Federal Bank in Troy, as part of the effort to bring the property under federal control. On May 28, 1998, Dingell wrote a letter to the leaders of four different federal agencies and MDEQ, urging them to give the project a thorough review for any and all regulatory issues, and encouraging them not to worry about how long the effort might take. Dingell even acknowledged in the letters that the agencies may not have authority to deal in every aspect of the matter, but urged them to do so anyway: "I realize that your agencies do not have or share responsibility for each of these issues I am raising in this letter," Dingell wrote. "However, given the uniqueness of the habitat in question, I believe it is imperative that your staffs conduct a coordinated and thorough inquiry into the various regulatory questions which will lead to the best decisions for the shoreline properties." And with that, Dingell proceeded to list a litany of issues he wanted the regulators to explore, including a controversial conservation easement, a spawning ground for walleye and other fish, staging areas for migratory ducks, and the potential environmental impact of dredging in connection with the development. Overzealous exercise of governmental authority complicated the issue. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers typically does not have authority over the development of bridges, as that oversight belongs to the Coast Guard. Nevertheless, the Army Corps informed Made In Detroit that it would hold up the development over a proposed bridge from the mainland to the island, where 25 luxury homes were to be built. Dingell followed up three months later with another letter reiterating his concerns about the environmental issues and instructing all the agency heads to keep him informed about progress on the matter, as well as any forums planned for public comment. Dingell even took a personal interest in the details. When the Army Corps of Engineers announced the expiration of a public comment period, Dingell wrote to demand that the period be extended. When MDEQ began considering the developer's wetland permit, Dingell sent a letter demanding the answers to 14 questions, including details about drainage and the locations of possible wetland mitigation. He also challenged the MDEQ's authority, demanding of then-director Russ Harding: "Please explain to me where the department derives its regulatory authority."

Support Canada Free Press

VIEW Comments