Oh, so exciting! C-Span has both the AM and PM sessions up for online viewing. If you cannot put the time into watching the hearings, at least watch the first 10 minutes of the AM hearings, which are of the opening remarks by Sens. Boxer and Inhofe. Each opening salvo is, of course, a stark contrast.
Polar bear has a great live-blog diary from today that covers at least most of the two sessions; the comment summaries are a great glimpse into the action on the floor and are quick reading. Please follow me below the fold for a summary of the opening remarks and a snapshot of the players and points of view to look at in the coming days.
In her opening statement, Boxer quotes from Friedman's book, Hot, Flat and Crowded and then says of her state:
In California, which has been one of the hardest-hit, by the housing crisis and the financial crisis, by a state budget crisis -- the area that has out-performed every other has been the creation of clean energy jobs and businesses. A recent report of the Pew Charitable Trusts found that more than 10,000 new clean energy businesses were launched in California [between] 1998 and 2007. During that period, clean energy investments generated 125,000 jobs in California and generated jobs 15% faster than our economy in our state as a whole.
Inhofe, on the other hand, dwells on the fact that the House vote just barely passed what he called "the cap-and-trade energy tax bill" by one vote over the majority, and recalls better times during the Bush administration:
Despite the 77-seat majority in the House, Speaker Pelosi passed her cap and trade energy tax bill on June 26th, by just one vote over the margin, in other words, the majority in the House is 218 to 219 votes. Against this backdrop, the Senate will begin the process of considering another cap and trade bill, and I'd like to note that the Senate is not new to this like the House was -- we've actually debated this five times. We've had three votes in 2003, 2005, and 2008, each time defeating it, substantially, and a little bit more each time.
He states that the Senate is going to be considering a massive bill in a very narrow space of time and cautions that a "substitute" bill should not appear at 3 am in the morning on the day of the vote (apparently this happened in the House) and concludes with:
The American people and their elected representatives deserve an open transfer and thorough review of any legislation that as the Washington Post described it, "will reshape America's economy in dozens of ways that many people don't realize." And you can be sure of this: Once the American public realizes what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resoundly reject it. Perhaps that explains why we are rushing cap and trade through the Senate so fast.
He also states a 6 day-old Rasmussen poll where 56% of Americans are not willing to pay anything to fight global warming.
So the lines are drawn. The people who spoke today included the Secretaries of Energy (Steven Chu), Agriculture (Tom Vilsack), and Interior (Ken Salazar), along with the head of the EPA (Lisa Jackson).
Again, I'm going to draw from polar bear's live-blog diary (and please go over and rec and recommend this diary while it is still live and available), and say that of the many things that were brought up, it is apparent that big ag and nuclear energy are going to have a lot of play in these hearings.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) established the meme that nuclear will be the way to go as a transitional alternative energy, and this was quickly echoed by Mike Crapo (R-ID), when he asked Chu why nuclear wasn't being considered as part of the energy base, to which Chu replied that nuclear power was still a problematic issue, but there were actions being made to help nuclear regulatory agency to help speed up the approval process (on new plants?).
Bernard Sanders (I-VT) made a statement to the effect that nobody wants the highly toxic waste generated by nuclear power.
Already nuclear power is being looked at as a kind of silver bullet to push this legislation along, a hot point for many environmentalists, and is something that should be watched in the coming days as these hearings progress.
Vilsack spoke about how agriculture is going to be hit hardest by caps on carbon emmissions, but also spoke of new technologies with livestock and farming, mentioning genetically-engineered soy beans as an example. Already, it seems apparent Vilsack is speaking for corporate agriculture, and his off-hand remark about GE soybeans should be a big red flag to environmentalists concerned about the effects genetically engineered seeds will have on global agriculture.
Inhofe, Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), John Barasso (R-WY), and Haley Barbour (head of the Republican Governors Association) all brought up, in one way or another, the meme of the global warming hoax.
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), managed to discredit Barbour somewhat in his claim that CO2 caps will hurt industry, by bringing up the fact that Barbour urged Cheney not to regular CO2 from power plants and referred to anyone who wanted to regulate as "eco-extremists."
I'm going to stop here, as it is late and I'd like to get this diary up before going to bed. Thursday is the next big day of hearings, and I urge everyone to meet at the next live-blog on these hearings and get the scoop as it happens. This is big, earth-changing legislation, and having a front-seat today for the first round was a mind-blower.