10:38 AM: Last up, Senators Sanders (I-VT), Klobuchar (D-MN) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I will start a new thread for Johnson's testimony. U.S. behind other industrial nations, our representative booed in Bali. If you're not going to do anything, at least get out of the way, as the law proscribes. "Unprecedented" that all they issued was a press release and a 2-page letter!
Klobuchar cites Judge Ishii's opinion from the CA clean cars suit dismissal: from the outset, air pollution control has been a cooperative state-federal legislative effort. Whitehouse submits written opening statement into record, notes unanimity around this issue from everyone: state health directors, for instance, are unanimous on the subject of warming impacts on them.
10:30 AM: Lautenberg (D-NJ) says this is a step backward in a global sense, chose to protect industry over environment. Glad states are suing to overturn; he and Boxer will soon introduce legislation to do the same thing. Cardin (D-MD) reiterates public health impact, subversion of EPA's historic role, and Lieberman's points-- this is an "affront to federalism." He's glad to press ahead with legislation-- federal agencies should press ahead without legislative interference, but when they ignore own scientists. Congress needs to step in.
10:18 AM: Senator Lieberman (I-CT) is up, to be followed by Senator Carper (D-DE). No Republicans besides Inhofe are present. Lieberman touts state leadership's benefits, and quotes Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin'" regarding the federal government standing in the road. This is actually how federalism is supposed to work-- laboratories of democracy! There is no patchwork; CA analysis refutes Johnson's assertions that federal fuel economy goes further; denial letter's statement on lacking "compelling and extraordinary conditions" is bunk in light of Mass. v. EPA.
Carper cites the same decision re: EPA's duty to harmonize vehicle GHG efforts with the DOT standards, not shirk it! Thinks inconsistencies/patchwork being possible is a real concern there, but EPA has done squat to address and act; instead made it an excuse for inaction, despite the Supreme Court knocking down the same excuses. Also, we need a national GHG cap-and-trade program, cites state and regional leadership. Congress must lead and not preempt, and then states won't have to do the job for them.
10:12 AM: Boxer uses up the rest of her time now, and icily notes Inhofe went over his by 30 seconds. This is the first time a waiver has been denied in full; she thought the field hearing was in friendship and of benefit to the people of CA. Holds up a tray with all the tape her staff had to pull of the EPA staff documents Tuesday: this is not befitting of treatment of Congress, in the greatest nation on earth.
10:10 AM: Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is on, and he's angry at the media for saying Johnson refused to appear at a January 10th hearing in Los Angeles. It was a field hearing, and a blatant political event, and had Johnson shown up he'd have been critical of him. Today's hearing is also theater. Where was the outrage when the Clinton EPA was repeatedly late, given far more time?
P.S. He thinks Johnson's decision was right, in case you didn't figure that out-- carbon is "ordinary, not extraordinary" when it comes to carbon. Plus temperatures there have been DECLINING over the last 2 decades according to his chart. Also Oklahoma would lose jobs if this went into effect.
10 AM: And we're live! Senator Boxer is speaking about this "unconscionable" decision affecting over half the population; she has "never seen such disregard and disrespect" for Congress from an agency head than in this process. Places in the record statements from CA officials, the governor of CT, and so forth. Also worth noting that Johnson's prepared testimony, from what I can see so far, very clearly announces that EPA will be trying to have the existing lawsuit tossed and force it to have to be refiled in the DC Circuit:
"The final decision document and federal register notice are currently being prepared by agency staff. When I review and sign the decision document for publication, that will be the final agency action and that will be the time for any court challenges. As with prior waivers, I expect that decision to be a final action of national applicability, and accordingly...Federal Register's notice of the decision will say so."