Thursday, April 30, 2009

Representative Waxman contrasts numerous hearings on climate change with lack of hearing on major legistation during years of Republican majority.

A pdf of the complete letter including footnotes is available here. This text was taken from the pdf and converted using character recognition. There may be some errors in the transcription.

Dear Ranking Members Barton and Upton:

This letter responds to the April 24, 2009, request from you and your Republican
colleagues on the Committee for additional day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of2009 (ACES). Your request was surprising given the extensive hearings the
Committee has held on energy policy and legislation. Our extensive hearings and the many
accommodations we have provided to the minority far surpass the process you provided
Democrats when you and your Republican predecessors controlled the Committee.

In the past two and a half years, this Committee has held dozens of hearings on energy
and climate change policy that have informed the development ofthe ACES text and built a
detailed factual record regarding the need for action on this matter. These hearings included:

• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Addressing Climate ChangeViews
from Private Sector Panels (Feb. 13,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on a Review ofthe Administration's
Proposalfor the Transportation Sector (Feb. 28, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Carbon Capture and
Sequestration; An Overview (Mar. 6, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Are Greenhouse
Gas Emissionsfrom Human Activities Contributing to a Warming ofthe Planet? (Mar. 7,
2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, The Environmental Protection Agency's
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request (Mar. 8, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change and Energy
Security: Perspectives from the Automobile Industry (Mar. 14,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: State and Local
Perspectives (Mar. 15,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Perspectives of
Utility CEOs (Mar. 20, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Perspectives on Climate Change
(Mar. 21,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change - International
Issues, Engaging Developing Countries (Mar. 27, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change - Lessons
Learnedfrom Existing Cap-and-Trade Programs (Mar. 29, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Alternative Transportation Fuels:
An Overview (Apr. 18,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Implementation ofthe EPACT
2005 Loan Guarantee Programs by the Department ofEnergy (Apr. 24, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Achieving - At Long LastAppliance
Efficiency Standards (May 1, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Facilitating the Transition to a
Smart Electric Grid (May 3, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Alternative Fuels: Current Status,
Proposals for New Standards, and Related Infrastructure Issues (May 8, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Drafts concerning Energy Efficiency, Smart Electricity Grid, Energy Policy Act of2005
Title XVII Loan Guarantees, and Standby Loansfor Coal-to-Liquids Projects (May 24,
2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Draft Concerning Alternative Fuels, Infrastructure, and Vehicles (June 7, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Administration Perspectives on
United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (Jan. 17,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Competitiveness
Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries (Mar. 5, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Strengths and Weaknesses of
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using Existing Clean Air Act Authorities (Apr.
10,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on the Renewable Fuels Standard:
Issues, Implementation, and Opportunities (May 6, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Proposals to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview (June 19,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Costs of
Inaction (June 26, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on HR. 6258, the Carbon Capture
and Storage Early Deployment Act (July 10, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Benefits ofImproved
Building Energy Efficiency (July 17, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Carbon Sequestration: Risks,
Opportunities, and Protection ofDrinking Water (July 24,2008);
• Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(Jan. 15,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Climate Crisis: National
Security, Economic, and Public Health Threats (Feb. 12,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Energy Efficiency:
Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation (Feb. 24, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Renewable Energy:
Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation (Feb. 26, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Role ofOffsets in Climate
Legislation (Mar. 5, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Future ofCoal Under
Climate Legislation (Mar. 10, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Consumer Protection
Provisions in Climate Legislation (Mar. 12,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Competitiveness and Climate
Policy: Avoiding Leakage ofJobs and Emissions (Mar. 18, 2009); and
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Preparingfor Climate
Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs (Mar. 25,2009).

In addition, the Committee held four days of legislative hearings from April 21 to 24,
2009, specifically on the draft ACES text. We also released the draft text three weeks in advance
of these legislative hearings to ensure that both majority and minority Committee members, as
well as outside experts, had substantial time to review the text prior to these legislative hearings.

In total, the Committee has held over 40 days of hearings on energy and climate change
policy over the past two Congresses. During these hearings, over 300 witnesses testified,
including 130 in this year alone. These hearings have included testimony from numerous
minority witnesses and have involved accommodations for the minority that are not required
under House or Committee rules. For example, 14 witnesses requested by the minority testified
in the legislative hearings on ACES from April 22 to 24, 2009. On both April 22 and 24, the
Committee scheduled new panels during the middle of the day to accommodate last-minute
minority witness requests, pushing majority witness panels into the evening hours on those days.

Our approach to this legislation stands in stark contrast to the approach you and your
Republican predecessors adopted in previous Congresses on legislation that affected millions of
Americans and involved expenditure of substantial taxpayer dollars. Consider these examples:

• The "Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003" (H.R. 2473): In
the 108th Congress, this Committee considered H.R. 2473, which provided for a new
trillion dollar prescription drug coverage program under Medicare. Despite the sweeping
policy and cost consequences of this measure, the Committee held no public hearings on
the legislation. There was no subcommittee markup. Democrats did not receive a copy
ofthe legislation until late Friday afternoon before a Tuesday markup.
• The "Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005" (H.R. 3893): In the 109th
Congress, the Committee considered H.R. 3893, which codified controversial Clean Air
Act "new source review" regulations of the Bush Administration and provided for the
expenditure ofhundreds of millions of dollars for programs relating to the supply and use
ofpetroleum and other energy products. The Committee held no legislative hearings on
the legislation and no subcommittee markup. Instead, the bill was released on a Friday
night at 10:00 p.m., allowing only two business days for its evaluation before a full
Committee markup the following Wednesday.2
• The "National Uniformity for Food Act of2005" (H.R. 4167): In the 1o9th Congress,
the Committee considered H.R. 4167, which preempted virtually every state and local
law that protected consumers from contaminated foods. The Committee held no hearings
on the legislation and no subcommittee markup.3
• The "Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act" (H.R. 5254): In the 109th Congress, the
House considered H.R. 5254, a bill that directed the President to designate no less than
three closed military installations as suitable for refinery construction and required states
to meet a federal schedule for issuing refinery construction permits. H.R. 5254 was put
on the House suspension calendar, a procedure normally reserved for non-controversial
bills, and brought up on the House floor just one day after its May 2, 2006, introduction,
without the benefit of any legislative hearings or markup by the Committee.4 One month
later, still without having held any legislative hearings or markup on this bill, the
Committee brought H.R. 5254 back to the House floor under a rule that permitted no
amendments.5

• The "Energy Policy Act of 2002" (H.R. 4): In the 107th Congress, Rep. Barton
introduced H.R. 3406, which would have made controversial changes to federal laws
governing the electricity sector. This bill was never marked up or reported out of
subcommittee or the full Committee due to its lack of support among Committee
members, and these provisions were not included in the broad energy policy bill, H.R. 4,
that was considered by the House. Nevertheless, when H.R. 4 went to conference, then Committee Chairman Tauzin and Rep. Barton announced that the House would take H.R.
3406 into the conference as the House position.6

These are just a few of many examples ofhow Republicans abdicated regular order when
they controlled this Committee. This track record makes it particularly difficult to see any
reasonable basis for Committee Republican complaints about the thorough, fair, and deliberate
process we are employing to consider the ACES measure. .

Nevertheless, we want to continue to take into consideration issues raised by all members
ofthe Committee as we proceed with this measure. We therefore will provide for an additional
day of Committee hearings on the ACES draft on Friday, May 1,2009.
Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

"Houston, we have a solution":

Lucky for us, a state can't be kicked out of the union.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Martinez Creek restoration subcommittee to meet Monday May 4 at Bihl Haus


One of the great things happening in our area is the restoration and improvement of the westside creeks: Martinez, Alazán, Apache and San Pedro.

The Martinez Creek subcommittee will meet at Monday, May 4 at 6:30 PM at Bihl Haus Arts, 2803 Fredericksburg Rd.

The Alazán Creek subcommittee meets Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:00 p.m at the
Crockett Elementary Library, 2215 Morales Street.

The whole Oversight Committee meets Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the offices of the
San Antonio River Authority, 100 E. Guenther.

The San Pedro Creek subcommittee meets Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at UTSA Downtown in Louis Kahn room- rm 3.340 of the Monterrey Building, 301 S. Frio Street.

The Apache Creek subcommittee meets Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at El Progreso Community Center, 1306 Guadalupe Street.

The public is invited to attend these meetings to learn more about the projects and to get involved in the process of planning the changes that will improve our quality of life for many generations to come .

Power Up America rally May 5 for the President's Green Energy/Green Economy legislation

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez has to make a decision on how to vote on President Obama's upcoming Green Energy/Green Economy legislation.

Let him know that San Antonio agrees with the President by attending the San Antonio POWER UP Rally. Green groups around San Antonio will rally in front of the Federal Building at 727 East Durango, 78205 from 4 to 5 PM while a smaller group meets with congressional staffers.

This legislation will make a difference for all of us regardless of party. So please come and show your support.

From Whitehouse.gov:

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The energy challenges our country faces are severe and have gone unaddressed for far too long. Our addiction to foreign oil doesn't just undermine our national security and wreak havoc on our environment -- it cripples our economy and strains the budgets of working families all across America. President Obama and Vice President Biden have a comprehensive plan to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

  • Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
  • Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
  • Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
  • Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Energy Plan Overview

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

  • Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

  • Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
  • Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
  • Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
  • Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
  • A "Use it or Lose It" Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
  • Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

  • Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
  • Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
  • Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
  • Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
  • Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.


Here is an ad produced by Moveon.org.

Unveiling of Hetherington Sculpture at Bihl Haus, May 2

Thanks to the generosity of Anthony C and Melissa Pearson, Bihl Haus Arts has received a large sculpture, "Highway" by James Hetherington.

The unveiling celebration, Saturday May 2 from 2 to 4 PM will include a talk by Mr. Hetherington as well as barbeque, beer and cake.

"Highway" is made from recycled rebar, concrete plate steel and remnants from road repairs. James uses these baled forms to celebrate blue-collar workers who construct the highways and buildings that make up our American landscape.

The sculpture will be visible from Fredricksburg Road and accessible from both on and off the Primrose property.

An exhibition of Mr. Hetherington's work continues at Bihl Haus until May 16, 2009.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Alejandro Soto, WLCA President: Was another bridge at Woodlawn Lake promised and if not, is there a better solution?

In two postings, this site has publicized the cause of the folks who believe a second bridge over Woodlawn Lake was promised and is the best solution to protect pedestrians and bicyclists from automobiles. Alejandro Soto, President of the Woodlawn Lake Community Association presents another point of view in a piece that first appeared in the San Antonio Post (except for the last three paragraphs which have been added by Mr. Soto). It is published here with his permission.
There is a campaign going on concerning a pedestrian bridge for Woodlawn Lake Park. Area residents have been receiving recorded telephone messages and door flyers saying that the 2007 City bond paid for a new bridge and that Councilman Justin Rodriguez has been "dragging his feet" in getting it built. I do not know who is behind this campaign, but I do know that it is spreading incorrect information.

The 2007 City bond package says: "Woodlawn Lake Park--Pedestrain Bridge and Playground $400,000. Development of basic park improvements including a pedestrain bridge and playground expansion." That is all it says in reference to Woodlawn Lake Park. It does not say to "build" a bridge. City officials have said that "development" of a pedestrain bridge can be to reconfigure the existing bridge for use by people on foot and on bicycles, to the exclusion of cars. That is what the Woodlawn Lake Community Association (WLCA) has been advocating since 2005.

Some voters might have voted for the parks bond thinking that they would get a new bridge. Yet others might have favored it because they want the playground expanded. Compare the Woodlawn playground with the one at Lion's Field. Aren't our kids being short-changed? Overall, though, as the Woodlawn provisions amount to only one-half of one percent of the total park bond package, I believe that most people were motiviated to vote for the parks bonds because of other provisions, such as the purchase and improvement of Voelcker Park.

WLCA has been trying to get the City to place a safe bicycle path around the Park. We want to do it without additional paving and we want safety at the bridge. At Earth Day in 2006 and again in 2007, we circulated a petition that says: "I support the plan of the Woodlawn Lake Community Association to create a bicycle lane on the perimeter streets of Woodlawn Lake Park by making the eastern boundary streets from Woodlawn to Cincinnati (N. Josephine Tobin, French, & Alexander) one way south and east, the western boundary street from Ashby to Woodlawn (S. Josephine Tobin) one way north; and closing the bridge on S. Josephine Tobin between Craig and Woodlawn to motor vehicles."

Our petititon gathered 450 signatures from people from the various parts of the City. Yet, our then-councilwoman Elena Guajardo would not work with us in trying to make this plan come about. Instead, she became insistent on building a new bridge alongside the existing bridge. The new bridge idea was brought up at the Parks Bond Committee in December 2006 and January 2007, where it was opposed and turned down. Guajardo then moved it to Community Initiatives without giving the history of the opposition, where it was approved in the form shown above. WLCA decided not to oppose the bond package when it was explained to us in a meeting with the Assistant City Manager, the Parks and Recreation Director, and representatives from the Department of Public Works, that, as written, the provision did not require that a new bridge be built. Also, because of this interpretation, I did not pursue an Open Meetings violation charge (Guajardo held a meeting with her bond committee appointees and City staff and excluded the public, in violation of City Attorney instructions to the bond committees).

There are several problems with building a new bridge. The first is cost. The estimate last year was $350-400,000. That would take up the entire bond provision and would leave nothing for the playground or other improvements. How much would a new bridge really cost? Main Plaza is 80% over budget. Would we only get half a bridge? The existing bridge can be reconfigured for under $100,000 and the playground expanded for under $150,000, leaving money for picnic and other facilities.

Also, the Park is a single use historic district and is in a flood plain. Before building a bridge, you would need historic review, environmental impact studies, engineering studies, and so on. This won't happen overnight, leaving the safety problems pending for perhaps several years. Closing the bridge gives instant safety, as we saw when the bridge was closed to cars for six weeks last spring. This closure did not result in traffic snarls elsewhere as predicted by some.

Finally, we have to look at protecting the Park. When Brackenridge was improved a few years ago, a lot of the car traffic was removed. We should not have cars criss-crossing our parks, leaving their exhaust, heat, and noise pollution and creating safety hazards. A new bridge for pedestrians would encourage more car traffic on the existing bridge. I do not find this to be good for the Park nor for park visitors. Also, a new bridge would be 20 feet wide (the existing foot path is 10 feet wide; plus to-and-fro bike lanes that the City insists on, each 5 feet wide). You then need 20 foot wide approaches on either side--about 25 yards long to the north to connect to Woodlawn, and 75 yards long to the south to go past the old bridge at Craig. That's a lot of grass and trees to be removed, resulting in what would be an environmental disgrace and eyesore.

Also, bond money will not be available for Woodlawn Lake Park improvements until later this year. To say that our councilman Justin Rodriguez has "dragged his feet" is simply not true. Although various options to deal with the safety problem at the bridge have been discussed and are being looked at, nothing can actually be developed until there is money to pay for it.

There are three proposals on how to make the crossing at S. Josephine Tobin and W. Woodlawn safer. These are to build new bridge for people on foot and on bicycles, to make existing bridge one-way north for cars leaving more room for people on foot and on bicycles, and close existing bridge to cars and leaving it exclusively for people on foot and on bicycles. Of these, erecting a second bridge would be the least safe. People on bikes and on foot are currently separated as they circumnavigate the Park. They do come together at the bridge and are side-by-side for about 60 yards. If the bridge were to be closed to cars, or if the bridge were to be made one-way, that 60 yards joint crossing would still exist. If a new bridge were to be built, the side-by-side bike and foot traffic would increase by about 100 yards. As stated above, the approaches to the new bridge would have to begin past the old bridge at Craig and would continue to W. Woodlawn, a additional distance of about 100 yards. Now, bicyclists would be speeding for about 160 yards next to walkers, joggers, baby strollers, wheel chairs, dogs on a leash, etc. Those of use who use the foot path frequently know how children and dogs tend to meander and could walk into the path of a bicylce. We would have eliminated a dangerous condition but created a new one.

Some people say that the bridge is needed for emergency vehicles. The Fire-EMS station for this area is at Culebra & Zarzamora. If there is an emergency north of Woodlawn, the emergency vehicles will come up Zarzamora, Elmendorf, or Wilson to Woodlawn and beyond. They would not cut through the Park to the bridge. That would add too much time in responding. If the emergency is south of Woodlawn, they would come up Culebra or Cincinnati to one of the cross streets south of the bridge. They would not go on Woodlawn, cross the bridge and head south. In my 9 years here, I have never seen an emergency vehicle, red-lights flashing, cross that bridge. A police car might have given chase across the bridge, but if it were to be closed, no bad guys would be crossing either, so there would be no one to chase.

There is no good reason to add a bridge to the Park and there are several reasons not to. I hope that the people in this area will take a walk to the Park and imagine the various options for dealing with the crossing and consider what I have stated. We can have safety, protect the historic and natural character of the Park, and keep costs minimal. Adding another bridge is a bad idea.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

We can urge congress to act to allow young people like Jefferson valedictorian Benita Veliz to become citizens.


Today many San Antonians learned for the first time from the Express News that a former Jefferson High valedictorian and graduate of St. Mary's University, Benita Veliz was in danger of being deported. Though she has succeeded in the US, she was brought here at the age of six without gaining admission from the INS. She had succeeded despite the many burdens that have been put upon such immigrants in the past decades.

Following a routine traffic stop, her immigration status was revealed and now she faces deportation. One hope for her and thousands of other young men and women is the Dream Act.

The Dream Act ‒ introduced by Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rep. Howard Berman of California and Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida‒ can solve this growing problem. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, undocumented young people could be eligible for a conditional path to citizenship in exchange for a mandatory two years in higher education or military service. Undocumented young people must also demonstrate good moral character to be eligible for and stay in conditional residency. At the end of the long process, the young person can have the chance to become an American citizen.

According to the Dream Portal, a website devoted to encouraging passage of the act, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is undecided on the act while Senator John Cornyn is opposed to it. If you support the passage of this act please contact our senators. According to the portal 53 senators are now in favor of the act. They believe that 60 votes are needed in order to overcome the now routine tactic of the filibuster.

If you are on Facebook you may also want to take a look at the "Don't Deport Benita Veliz" group.

Change is on the way to Martinez Creek and you can help!

Within living memory in the river city of San Antonio, most of our creeks and rivers have been little more than drainage ditches with names.

Dating back to the vision of Mayor Howard Peak, we've seen work on Leon Creek, the Medina River, the San Antonio River and Salado creek to remake them into linear parks and green spaces. Now, the San Antonio River Authority has brought that process to the creeks of the westside: Apache, Alazan, Martinez and the downtown portion of San Pedro Creek (which those knowledgeable in San Antonio history may recall was in the west or Mexican end of downtown in the days of segregation.)

At Earth Day in Woodlawn Lake Park, Saturday April 18 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Woodlawn Lake Gymnasium ,SARA will be hosting an Imagination Station where we will be encouraged to envision the future of the creek. We will be given the chance to imagine parks, hike trails, bike trails and recreational facilities.