Hearings this week in the Senate

[TayTay]

There are a lot of 'em. There are even a few that conflict with each other timewise, which is a real shame.

Big doings, this week and next on hearings having to do with climate change, global warming, science and so forth.

[MBS]

1. here's a list from bobgeiger.com

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/03/this-weeks-senate-committee-schedule.html

Possible JK-related ones (? Tay's the ultimate authority here):

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Mar 6, 2007 at 10 a.m. To hold oversight hearings to examine the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program.

Mar 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. To hold hearings to examine policy implications of pharmaceutical importation for U.S. consumers. (Interstate Commerce, Trade, and Tourism Subcommittee)

Mar 7, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. To hold hearings to examine national imperatives for Earth Science research. (Space, Aeronautics, and Related Agencies Subcommittee)

Mar 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. To hold hearings to examine the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration Part II. (Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee)

Foreign Relations

Mar 6, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. Business meeting to consider committee rules of procedure for the 110th Congress.

S.377, to establish a United States-Poland parliamentary youth exchange program.
S.494, to endorse further enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to facilitate the timely admission of new members to NATO.
S.676, to provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation.
S.Res.65, condemning the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights advocate Hrant Dink and urging the people of Turkey to honor his legacy of tolerance.

The nominations of Ryan C. Crocker, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq, and William B. Wood, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Mar 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. To hold hearings to examine time for a new strategy relating to Afghanistan.

Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Mar 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. To hold hearings to examine small business solutions for combating climate change.

full list at bobgeiger.com (see url above)

[TayTay]

2. CAFE Standards: Commerce Committee, 3/6/07 10 am

Oversight Hearing on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
10:00 AM
SR - 253
Click here on the day for the webcast: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1827

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1
Hon. Nicole Nason
Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ms. Katherine Siggerud
Director, Physical Infrastructure Team
Government Accountability Office

Panel 2
Dr. David J. Friedman
Union of Concerned Scientists

Ms. Elizabeth Lowery
Vice President, Environment and Energy
General Motors

Dr. David Greene
Corporate Research Fellow, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Transportation Research Center

Mr. Tom Stricker
Director, Technical and Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America

Mr. Alan Reuther
Legislative Director, International Union
United Auto Workers

Background info: http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_cafe_standards.shtml

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Senate Republicans pressed the Democratic leadership to bring a Senate version of omnibus energy legislation to the floor as soon as possible, arguing for the soonest possible action on legislation that they asserted would enhance U. S. energy security. Debate on a revised version of a bill originally introduced by Senator Bingaman, S. 517, began in late February 2002.

An amendment to that bill proposed to include the language of the National Fuel Savings and Security Act of 2002 (S. 1926) introduced on February 8, 2002, by Senator Kerry, the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. Major provisions of this legislation relating to CAFE include:

• The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Administrator of EPA, is to "prescribe" standards beginning MY2005 that would achieve a combined CAFE for passenger automobiles and light duty trucks of 35 mpg for MY2013.
  
• An interim standard would be established of 33.2 mpg for cars and 26.3 for light trucks, by MY2010. After MY2010, the Secretary would have the discretion to set a combined standard for cars and trucks.
  
• If standards are not established 18 months after passage, a series of default standards take effect, raising automobile CAFE to 38.3 mpg in MY2013 and light trucks to 32 mpg; there would be no combined standard.
  
• DOT would be required to review the difference between rated CAFE and in-use CAFE under "average driving conditions," with the objective of narrowing any differences to no more than 5% by MY2015.
  
• A system where manufacturers could trade credits for exceeding the standards between cars and trucks, and domestics and imports would be established.
  
• A special identifying label (Green Label Program) would be created for vehicles that both meet or exceed the CAFE standard and are also certified to have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles in its class. A system of green stars would also be established to denote cars that exceed the standards, and a special gold star for cars exceeding 50 mph and light trucks exceeding 37 mpg. DOT would study "social marketing strategies" to acquaint the public to the meaning of these logos.
  
• Grants and awards would be provided for various competitions for technical demonstrations and innovation.
  

A somewhat similar bill (S. 1923), introduced by Senator McCain, would delay the establishment of higher standards until MY2007, but would require a combined CAFE of 36 mpg by MY2016. It would introduce combined standards for cars and trucks in MY2007 and limit the credits that could be traded or purchased. This legislation would also eliminate the credit for dual-fueled vehicles. As debate on the Daschle amendment to S. 517 commenced in late February, it was reported that Senators McCain and Kerry had reached agreement to seek a combined CAFE of 36 mpg by MY2015. However, on March 13, 2002, the Senate voted (62-38) for an amendment offered by Senators Levin and Bond to charge NHTSA with development of new CAFE standards. The Senate went on to approve an amendment (56- 44) from Senator Miller to freeze "pickup trucks"– to be defined by the Secretary of Transportation – at the current light truck standard of 20.7 mpg. Proponents of the amendment argued that subjecting pickup trucks to higher CAFE standards would render these vehicles inadequately powered for farmers and laborers who use these vehicles to haul loads and perform work. Critics of the amendment pointed to the inconsistency of the Senate's maintaining, on the one hand, that the body lacked the expertise to set CAFE standards, but then turning around to freeze pickup trucks at 20.7 mpg. It is not apparent how "pickup trucks" was to be defined. If enacted, the provision could well result in a third category of vehicles, differentiated both from passenger automobiles, and the sort of SUVs and passenger vans that are currently categorized as "light duty trucks."

Reaction in the hours after these votes focused upon the Levin amendment as a defeat for pro-CAFE forces – which it was, in a sense, although the resumption of a role for NHTSA in establishing fuel economy targets could be significant. However, the ramifications of the Miller amendment could prove a potent offset to NHTSA rulemakings, depending upon how much of the light truck fleet comes to be exempted from higher CAFE requirements. The Senate passed S. 517 (88-11) on April 25, 2002, substituting the bill's language for H. R. 4. Shortly before final passage, the Senate voted 57-42 to table an amendment offered by Senators Carper and Specter to require a reduction of 1 million b/ d (barrels/ day) in transportation sector fuel consumption. The amendment and its proposed reduction in fuel use was perceived by some as an arbitrary target and an indirect way of securing a significant increase in CAFE. Opponents argued that the Senate had already voted for NHTSA to conduct a rulemaking, and that the Senate had, in the Levin amendment, rejected setting specific targets, whether it be CAFE standards or specific reductions in fuel consumption.

The conference committee instructed staff to see whether a compromise could be worked out by August 30, 2002. On September 19, the conferees agreed to the House-passed savings of 5 billion gallons in light-truck fuel consumption, but it shifted the applicable window to MY2006-MY2012. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill proposed to extend the CAFE credit to manufacturers of dual-fueled vehicles. The maximum annual credit of 1.2 mpg applies to vehicles manufactured through MY2008; that maximum drops to 0.9 mpg during MY2009-MY2012. A Senate-proposed list of expanded criteria to be taken into consideration in setting maximum feasible fuel economy levels was dropped. Also dropped was House language requiring a study of the "feasibility and effects" of reducing fuel use by automobiles "by a significant percentage." The Senate floor amendment capping "pickup truck" CAFE at 20.7 mpg also was not included in any of the House and Senate offers tendered to the conference committee. Conference Committee Chairman Tauzin, in response to criticism that the 5 billion gallon savings was negligible, pointed out that this target was a floor, not a ceiling, and that NHTSA could set future CAFE at levels that would achieve greater savings.

[MH1]

4. Thank you for the policyalmanac excerpt -

that sheds some light on my "wtf" moment I posted about here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=126200&mesg_id=126200

Except it doesn't help with why the "death tax" amendment was introduced for Kerry's amendment.

Also, did NHTSA end up with the authority (sounds like they did) and if so, what have they done with it?

[TayTay]

11. Because the 'death tax' repeal is an absolute no for Dems

There are certain 'under no conditions' things that each political Party has in America. The Repubs have lots of these. Right now, the Homeland Security Bill is being held up in the Senate because the Repubs say, "no way, never, unuh, not on my watch, only if I'm dead or poor" and so forth on allowing the TSA employees to unionize. (Really. Turn on C-Span. You will see all sorts of Repubs on the floor of the Senate holding up copies of the 9/11 Report and rifling through the pages and saying that no where inside this big book, that doesn't have any pictures, does it say we need a unionized TSA workforce.)

Democratic no-no's include repealing the Estate Tax, which the Republicans call the Death Tax. (Repubs get all hot, bothered and sweaty over the idea of dying and leaving tax free money to their heirs. It's a Repub thing. They believe in death, but not taxes, and find it personally insulting when the two get mixed together. Again, Repub logic.)

Democrats ain't never gonna vote for repealing the Estate Tax. Not no how, not no way. It's a fundamental difference between the parties. So, when Repubs fear that something sensible and good and sound might actually escape from the Congress and become law, they attach the repeal of the Estate Tax to it and kill it. They have done this a lot. (I think little Repub children dress up on Halloween as the super-scary 'Death Tax' guy, that's how scared Repubs are of taxes after death.)

It's a Repub thing. It's not only merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead, when it gets the Estate Tax repeal attached to it. Bad, bad, bad Rethugs. Always thinking with their wallets.

[TayTay]

15. Hearing recessed until Kerry gets there

His questioning is next. (12:11 PM now.)

Oh, and HAPPY FITZMAS!!!!!!

[TayTay]

16. Good question: Why is the goal not in the legislation

Nason: Because it's a goal. We want to raise CAFE standards 4% a year. Not in the legislation because, ahm, it's a goal.

JK: You have the authority to do this, right.

Nason: Yeah for light trucks. Not for Passenger fleet.

JK: The definition has changed. (S1926 2002 Act) Kerry-Hollings provision stuck for all the usual political reasons. (Get transcript.)
Why would you not require a goal that we can actually make. (Technologically speaking.)

Nason, ahm we don't know that we can do it.

JK: back and forth on how feasible this is.

Kerry reads from the 2001 report that says how much more could have been done with the known science then. Why not go with that and with the improvements made since then.
Good exchange.

JK: require 4%

Nason: No. It's a goal.

Why have a goal then. "It's just a game."

Oh, this is great. We need the full transcript.

We have a goal to reach? What is the plan to reach the goal? We have a goal? What is the plan? Oh man, this is great stuff. How long have you folks been in office? And you have no plan?

Oh Senator, snap.!

[TayTay]

3. NASA & Earth Science, Wednesday, March 7, 2:30 pm

National Imperatives for Earth Science Research
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
02:30 PM
SR - 253
Day of the hearing go here for the webcast: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1825

Witnesses

No Witnesses Scheduled At This Time

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/earth-sun/applications/index.html

This is kind of cool. What is NASA doing and why hold a hearing on Earth Science and this federal agency? From the website above:

NASA has identified twelve (12) national applications with partner federal agencies and national organizations that can be served by the results of NASA aerospace research and development of science and technologies through integrated system solutions.

+ Agricultural Efficiency
+ Air Quality
+ Aviation
+ Carbon Management
+ Coastal Management
+ Disaster Management
+ Ecological Forecasting
+ Energy Management
+ Homeland Security
+ Invasive Species
+ Public Health
+ Water Management

NASA, it's not just for astronauts anymore! Who knew? (Just kidding, of course.)

[TayTay]

5. SFRC: Tuesday, March 6th 2:00 pm Business Meeting

Business Meeting
HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Time: 2:15 PM
Place: S-116 The Capitol
Presiding: Senator Biden

This is the first business meeting after the hearings on the new Ambassadors to Iraq, Afghanistan, The Netherlands and that Fox guy to Belgium. I know the Iraq and Afghanistan ambassadorships are on the docket for a vote. I don't know if Fox and the other guy are or not.

[TayTay]

6. SFRC: Thurs, March 8th 10:00 am. Afghanistan

Afghanistan:
Time for a New Strategy?

HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Time: 9:30 AM
Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Presiding: Senator Biden

Witness:

+The Honorable Richard Boucher
Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central
Asian Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC

+Additional Witness May Be Added…

Answer to the question in the title of this hearing: duh, yes it is. (That was easy.)

Ahm, this conflicts with a Small Business Hearing that Sen. Kerry will chair. But, it's a good one to catch anyway, maybe with the archived webcast at http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070308a.html

[TayTay]

7. CLOSED hearing SFRC, 3/8 2:00 pm Gulf Security Region

Gulf Security Dialogue

CLOSED BRIEFING

before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Time: 2:00 PM
Place: S-407 The Capitol
Presiding: Senator Kerry


Briefers:
+The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Department of State

+The Honorable Eric Edelman
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Department of Defense

Maybe it's just me, but I would send chocolate chip cookies for after this hearing. Oh Lord.

"What the hell is actually going on over there?"
"Ah, we invaded Baghdad again, we are giving money out to Sunni groups who may be giving some of it to Al Qaeda groups and we are picking a fight with the Shia because, ahm, ah, because we decided, 4 years after the war started, that we really hate these guys. We used to really hate the Sunni and Al Qaeda cuz they blew up the Twin Towers, but, now we decided that we hate Iran more."
"WTF are you talking about? Have you people lost your friggin minds?"

---- intepretive analysis of what goes on behind closed doors. Not related to reality, I hope.

[MBS]

8. oy!

I think he'll need more than chocolate chip cookies. . .

[TayTay]

10. Yeah, me too!

Let's see, Sen. Kerry, as chair of the subcomittee that deals with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and several other of the world's funnest 'hot spots' invites Nicholas Burns from State to discuss politics and the guy from DoD to discuss policy in the Gulf Region. Hmmmmm, wonder what's on the Chairman's mind these days?

You're right about the cookies. Send Guinness. Maybe both.

[MH1]

12. Heh...cookies to the office...

Guinness to the house. With a note on the cookies to go home and enjoy the Guinness.

[TayTay]

17. CANCELLED

Not happening.

Not that we would have heard anything anyway from a CLOSED hearing, but still, in terms of absolute accuracy, this ain't happening.

[TayTay]

9. Small Biz, 3/8/07 10AM Small Biz and Climate Change

No info on website, but I know this is going to happen cuz there was a press release. You can check this website later on for info and the audio of the hearing. http://sbc.senate.gov/20070308.cfm

California has a center for Small Business and the Environment ("CSBE") and you can see how their state hearing went in November on this topic at: http://www.geocities.com/aboutcsbe/eesireport.html (It obviously went pretty well, as staff from Sen. Kerry's and Sen. Snowe's staff attended and promised to look into having Senate hearings, and, ahm, viola! they are having hearings.)

CSBE doc that explains the problems pretty well:

The Small Business Climate Initiative
WHAT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

1. Small businesses may be among the hardest hit victims of climate change.

Extreme weather events can wipe out an entire region's small businesses in one fell swoop. And because most small firms operate on slim profit margins, they can't bounce back from disruptions caused by natural disasters. Look, for example, at the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on small businesses in the Gulf Coast region, where they constituted the backbone of the economy.

Some industries that consist almost entirely of small businesses are already feeling the heat. In Vermont, for example, where the maple syrup industry is an integral part of the economy, tappers are experiencing adverse effects of global warming. Researchers have found statistical evidence that cold-loving maples yield less sap in warmer winters. An analysis of syrup production over the past eight decades shows a decline in every New England state except Maine, the only one to buck the warming trend.

There are numerous other small business industries under the gun. In California, for example, both the ski industry and some leaders of the wine industry actively supported the state's tough new global warming law.

2. A scientific consensus has formed.

All small business advocates – whatever their politics or philosophy – need to take a fresh hard look at the mounting scientific evidence that global warming is here and now. The best and truest interests of the small business constituency deserve no less.

3. Tough government action to combat global warming is increasingly likely

Small business owners need to recognize that the train has left the station. Small businesses will inevitably be affected by these measures.

Other stuff:

Nuvera employs 130 people in the United States and 45 in Milan, Italy. It is partnering with large U.S. companies such as DuPont, Honeywell and Chevron, but expects to find its initial customers in Europe and Japan.

"Why? Because both are further advanced than the United States in terms of their environmental consciousness and the support of their governments for the deployment of fuel cells," Bentley said.

Fuel cells, which operate like a battery, generate electricity from hydrogen.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., points to innovators such as Nuvera as evidence that environmental regulation can present opportunities, not obstacles, for small businesses.

"Protecting the environment and creating jobs can go hand in hand -- we need not choose one over the other," says Kerry, the new chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. "Small businesses and government can come together to create innovative technologies that help businesses run environmentally friendly operations."

More than 28 percent of the nation's 115,000 environmental firms are small businesses, Kerry points out.

"We're the ones who are doing R&D," says Ralph Bedogne, vice president of finance for Engineered Machine Products.

From: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2001/09/10/newscolumn4.html

More 'other stuff:'

View the hearing mentioned above on Small Biz: "The Business of Environmental Technology" at: http://sbc.senate.gov/20010801.cfm

Or get the transcript of this hearing at:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:78870.wais

[whometense]

18. Live video link

http://sbc.senate.gov/multimedia/live.ram

[whometense]

19. GLASSES ALERT

for those who care about such trivial matters... :loveya:

[TayTay]

20. Yeah, nice

And the slightly PO'd tone in the good Senator's voice.

Good hearing.

[globalvillage]

13. Awesome week for hearings!

Thank you for this, Tay. I've been waiting for your hearings post, it's one of the highlights of my week!

OK, so I don't get out much. Still, excellent stuff.


:yourock:

[TayTay]

14. Commerce, Wed 3/7 10AM Importing Drugs and the lower costs

Policy Implications of Pharmaceutical Importation for U.S. Consumers
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
09:30 AM
SR - 253
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1829

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1
Dr. Randall Lutter
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy
Food and Drug Administration

Panel 2
Hon. Billy Tauzin
CEO
PhRMA

Dr. Stephen Schondelmeyer
Professor and Head, Department of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems
University of Minnesota, College of Pharmacy

Mr. William Schultz
Partner
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

Ms. Nelda Barnett
Board Member
AARP

Dr. John Vernon
Assistant Professor, Department of Finance
University of Connecticut School of Business

Oh wow, Bill Tauzin comes back to the scene of his crimes. Search for the Perscription Drug bill on this site for the skinny on Tauzin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin

BTW, Sen. Kerry named Tauzin as a symptom of the corruption of the Repub Congress at that dinner in Manchester, NH held last Oct. By name. Huh! Wonder if the tall Senator from Mass can think of a few questions to ask Mr. Tauzin at this set-to.