Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Highway Technical Corrections Bill

Press Release: Inhofe Praises President Bush for Rejecting Lieberman-Warner Bill

Inhofe Praises President Bush for Rejecting Lieberman-Warner Bill

President Bush Outlines New Technologies Approach Right for Oklahoma and the Nation

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, issued the following statement in response to President Bush’s statement in which he set out a new intermediate national goal for stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

“I applaud the President for outlining a bold alternative climate initiative that rejects the concept that the United States must adopt economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill that would significantly drive up the already skyrocketing cost of energy on the American public,” Senator Inhofe said. “Today, as American families and American workers are faced with an economic downturn, the slumping housing market, and rising gas prices,  they are unlikely to tolerate a ‘de-stimulus’ climate bill that will not have the sponsors’ purported impact on temperatures but will further exacerbate economic pain.

“Rather, the President outlined the only politically and economically sustainable path forward, one that embraces and develops new technologies. I have long advocated a technology approach that brings in the developing world nations such as China and India as the only viable approach. The President is right, as Oklahoma demonstrates; tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include oil, coal, and nuclear energy, which is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. The President’s approach serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and, along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases.

“Over the past year we have watched as liberal special interests have employed hundreds of lawyers to try and convert current environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act into climate laws. Their attempt to list the polar bear as a threatened species is not about protecting the bear but about using the ESA to achieve global warming policy that they cannot otherwise achieve through the legislative process. The implications of such a policy would lead to drastic increases in litigation and eager lawyers ready to find ways to shut down energy production.

“Importantly, I believe the President’s proposal is the right one for Oklahoma. We have a proud tradition of leading the country in energy development. We have long been a leader in oil and natural gas supply, and today we are becoming a leader in innovating and providing transportation fuels for the future. We recognize that developing energy at home translates into energy security, which ensures stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for workers in Oklahoma and across the country.”

# # #

 

Inhofe-Mica United Against Federal Land Grab Legislation

Inhofe-Mica United Against Federal Land Grab Legislation 

Congressional Hearings Expose Significant Opposition to Democrat Water Bill  

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, and U.S. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republican Leader, today issued the following statements reflecting on the recent Senate and House hearings on the highly controversial Clean Water Restoration Act.

 

Sen. Inhofe: “Recent hearings in both the Senate and House on the Clean Water Restoration Act made clear the tremendous opposition to the bill by landowners, cattleman, and local governments. Both Committees heard repeatedly in testimony that clean water is critical for our well being; however, this bill does not lead to cleaner water and is nothing more than a federal land grab attempt. If Congress is to amend the Clean Water Act, any changes must provide clarity and reduce lawsuits.  This bill does neither.  It will not curtail litigation, but rather increase it, as stakeholders seek legal clarity on what exactly are the outer limits of Congressional authority.  We should not propose, let alone pass legislative language that increases uncertainty, burdens local governments, and challenges the sanctity of private property rights.” 

 

Rep. Mica: “There is significant nationwide opposition to this unprecedented and historic federal jurisdiction grab, made clear by the lengthy Transportation Committee hearing on Mr. Oberstar’s bill. Multiple witnesses testified to the confusion, costs, delays, and endless litigation that will result should this overreaching bill become law. The responsible regulatory agencies also voiced their concerns with the bill, and testified that they are gaining significant experience with their recent guidance and believe that such a heavy-handed legislative approach is unwarranted. H.R. 2421 and its companion bill in the Senate could lead to the regulation of virtually every wet area in the country, with dramatic impacts on American agri-business, manufacturing, housing, and other businesses, as well as state, local, and individual water and land use rights.  With our economy already in troubled waters, this legislation could push American jobs overseas and put another nail in our economic coffin.”

 

#

 

Inhofe and Mica pointed out that the Clean Water Act has been a great success in improving and protecting the quality of water across the nation.  Yet the proposed legislation threatens to unbalance these gains with the potential for virtually unchecked federal regulation.  

 

Inhofe and Mica agreed that federal regulation of waters must be reasonable and respectful of the constitutional role of state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the rights of individuals; it must not create greater confusion and regulatory ambiguity. Simultaneously, it must not increase expensive and burdensome litigation or create more bureaucracy that will imperil water quality gains of recent decades; and must not prevent our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and other businesses from providing food, goods and services to the nation.

 

# # #  

Hearing on Pharmaceuticals in the Nation

 

Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today on pharmaceuticals in the environment.  I’m sure you would agree that Americans enjoy one of the safest drinking water supplies in the world, as well as reliable pharmaceutical drug supplies.  Over the years, science has helped answer many questions and provide remarkable cures for common viruses to complex diseases.  At the same time, science often creates many new and challenging questions.  It has moved us to a point where we can now detect contaminants in our water all the way down to the parts per trillion.  Those emerging contaminants have caused the public to rightly question, is our drinking water safe?  I believe the answer is yes, as we will hear in testimony today.  

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported on emerging traces of pharmaceuticals in several municipal drinking water systems, spurring public concern and this hearing.  Although, we should note that this is not a new issue.  In fact, this subject has been studied for nearly 40 years, even before the Safe Drinking Water Act was signed into law.  However, that doesn’t discount the public concern created over the media report.

 

Mr. Chairman, I sent a letter to EPA requesting that they first respond to the public, ensuring their health and safety is not immediately at risk.  I also asked that the Administrator convene an advisory committee or working group comprised of all relevant federal agencies, interested public and industry to review the emerging scientific data and identify possible mitigation practices to reduce overall disposal of pharmaceuticals.  I appreciate EPA’s timely response on both requests and am happy to know there is no immediate health risk.  I am also happy to hear that the administration is currently reviewing cross jurisdictional guidelines to find a better way for drug disposal. I look forward to hearing from our government panel.

 

 

We will also hear testimony today from Dr. Alan Goldhammer from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, who has done extensive research on pharmaceuticals in the environment.  PhRMA has developed a watershed-based model to estimate concentrations of active pharmaceutical ingredients discharged into surface waters through everyday consumption of medicines.  Through that base model, industry, in cooperation with USGS, has further developed human health risk data on 26 active pharmaceutical ingredients.  A significant amount of time and money between the federal government and private industry has produced favorable studies suggesting that the public is indeed safe.  I appreciate the time and effort by all in this area. 

 

I’m also pleased to have Dr. Shane Snyder from Southern Nevada Water Authority here to discuss his research on both the concerns that were raised by the media, as well as whether current scientific findings warrant expensive treatment mandates.  Dr. Snyder has published several manuscripts and book chapters on endocrine disrupters and pharmaceuticals in water and we are happy to have him here today.  

 

Before we get started, anytime we discuss issues surrounding drinking water, I must take the opportunity to remind the committee that we need to improve our nation’s drinking water facilities by reauthorizing the States Revolving Loan Fund programs, both drinking and waste water.  This committee has the responsibility to ensure clean, safe, and affordable water for our country by providing the necessary resources to our states and local governments. 

I hope this hearing provides clarity to the status of public health and safety, while recognizing that current treatment facilities are already under enormous compliance pressure.

###

EPA Responds to Inhofe Letter on The Safety Of Our Nation

April 14, 2008

Following a March 10, 2008, Associated Press article reporting that traces of pharmaceutical contaminants were found in municipal water systems across the country, Senator Inhofe sent a letter to Administrator Johnson expressing his concern about the report and asking EPA to convene a working group of relevant agencies and industry to look for potential solutions to reduce overall pharmaceuticals in our water supply. 

On April 4, Assistant Administrator for Water, Benjamin H. Grumbles, sent this letter in response. Mr. Grumbles pointed out that, “[a]lthough the Associated Press series brought broad attention to this issue, EPA has been working with other agencies and stakeholders over the past several years to better understand the implications of emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and other personal care products that are detected in our waters.” He also pointed out that, “while there is much information about the health effects of pharmaceutical products at the therapeutic doses provided in medication, there is still uncertainty about their potential effects on public health and aquatic life from long-term exposure to the low levels observed in water. In the absence of fully understanding the risks associated with low levels, it is difficult to move forward to require monitoring and/or treatment that carry significant cost, particularly when the Agency also needs to carry out activities to address contaminants with known risk.”

The letter goes on to detail EPA’s activities that address pharmaceuticals and personal care products in drinking water, including the cross government coordination of the Pharmaceuticals in the Environment working group, to research at the Office of Research and development to working with the White House Office on National Drug Control policy to help with disposal guidelines.

Tomorrow, April 15, 2008, at 3:00pm ET [Note the Time Change], Assistant Administrator Grumbles will appear before the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality hearing entitled, “Pharmaceuticals in the Nation’s Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue.” Tomorrow’s hearing should provide Grumbles the opportunity to expand on the issue in more detail. Also testifying at the hearing tomorrow:  Dr. Robert Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey. The witnesses also include: Jennifer Sass Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council; Alan Goldhammer Ph.D., Deputy Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Shane Snyder Ph.D., R&D Project Manager, Applied Research and Development Center, Southern Nevada Water Authority; and David Pringle, Campaign Director, New Jersey Environmental Federation.

# #

INHOFE HONORED WITH 2008 FRIEND OF THE WILDCATTER AWARD

OIPA HONORS INHOFE WITH 2008 FRIEND OF THE WILDCATTER AWARD

A Tireless Advocate of Efforts to Grow State’s Oil and Natural Gas Economy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) this week was honored with the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association’s (OIPA) “2008 Friend of the Wildcatter” award for his service to Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas industry.  Inhofe, who serves as ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has long supported efforts to increase domestic production.The award recognizes Inhofe as “ ‘Friend of the Wildcatter’ for voting consistently in the 110^th Congress to grow the economy, protect Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas industry jobs, and increase domestic exploration and production.”

“It’s a real honor to serve the people of Oklahoma and the men and women working in the domestic energy industry,” said Inhofe. “America’s independent oil and natural gas producers are working every day to make our nation more energy secure.  I’m proud to support policies that encourage the United States to develop its oil and natural gas resources right here at home. Our economy demands it. Our grandchildren deserve it.”

Senator Inhofe has consistently worked to further develop domestic sources for oil and natural gas exploration and production and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens.  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Senator Inhofe enacted language to deny efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to supersede the authority of States and establish broad regulatory control over the industry practice of hydraulic fracturing.  He also secured passage of provisions to clarify Congressional intent concerning the Clean Water Act's regulatory reach over uncontaminated storm water discharges from exploration and production sites. 

Additionally, Inhofe has repeatedly passed temporary suspensions of the net income limitation on percentage depletion allowance for oil and natural gas wells and has introduced legislation for its complete elimination, encouraging the continued production from marginal wells.

OIPA is the state's largest oil and gas advocacy group, representing more than 1,700 member companies in the crude oil and natural gas exploration/production industry or affiliated businesses.  According to the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, the total economic output of Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas industry is estimated to be more than $23 billion. Roughly 60,000 Oklahomans work directly in energy related jobs with the industry supporting indirectly an additional 186,000 jobs.

 #  #
 

Watch: Inhofe Floor Remarks on the Highway Technical Corrections Bill

SAFETEA Technical Corrections

Floor Statement of 

Senator James M. Inhofe

 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, signed into law August 10, 2005, authorized $286.5 billion in transportation infrastructure spending for fiscal years 2005 to 2009. As one of the largest non defense discretionary bills to move through Congress, it is not unusual to revisit a bill after the fact to make technical corrections to address problems in implementation, misidentified project authorizations, and minor drafting errors.

Included in this bill are recommended technical changes from Department of Transportation that address the functional problems in implementing the bill; technical changes to SAFETEA projects which will continue to be delayed from breaking ground due to simple drafting errors in their description.    Furthermore, universities and other transportation research will not receive their fully intended funding, and states will be unable to use millions of dollars transportation funds that were authorized 3 years ago.

The bill does not increase the overall size of SAFETEA. Several of my colleagues have approached me recently with additional project fixes. In some cases, I have had to say no to their requests because they either submitted them too late to be considered with our negotiations with the House; the request went beyond the scope of a technical fix; or because the proposed fix was to a House project which the House objected to the change. My Committee colleagues and I have been attempting to get this bill through the Senate since shortly after the President signed SAFETEA in 2005.   However, a variety of issues have come up that have prevented our bringing the bill to the floor.  In the interim, we have been open to discussing with members their fixes, giving ample time to get requests in.   As in any bill of this nature there comes a point when we have to close it to further changes.  We have reached that point.

 Our colleagues in the House have passed this bill, I believe, seven times but each time it comes over to the Senate it has been held up. The bill before us along with the manager’s substitute amendment is the commutation of negotiations between the House and Senate. Any changes to the bill at this point will require the concurrence of the House or the bill will not proceed. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to understand that if you are planning on filing an amendment, before the Chair and I can agree to it, we need to determine if our counterparts in the House will accept the change. If they do not, we will oppose your amendment.

In conclusion, I want to assure colleagues that I appreciate your responsiveness to our numerous requests to advise the Committee of your requests thereby assisting us to help you. If we were unable to satisfactorily address your concerns in this bill, please remember that there will be additional opportunities to do so when reauthorization of SAFETEA gets underway next year. The Chair and I welcome your input in the process and look forward to working with each of you.

# # #

 

Inhofe Opening, Surface Transportation and the Global Economy: April 16, 2008

Inhofe Floor Statement on the SAFETEA Technical Corrections Bill

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, signed into law August 10, 2005, authorized $286.5 billion in transportation infrastructure spending for fiscal years 2005 to 2009. As one of the largest non defense discretionary bills to move through Congress, it is not unusual to revisit a bill after the fact to make technical corrections to address problems in implementation, misidentified project authorizations, and minor drafting errors.

Included in this bill are recommended technical changes from Department of Transportation that address the functional problems in implementing the bill; technical changes to SAFETEA projects which will continue to be delayed from breaking ground due to simple drafting errors in their description.    Furthermore, universities and other transportation research will not receive their fully intended funding, and states will be unable to use millions of dollars transportation funds that were authorized 3 years ago.

The bill does not increase the overall size of SAFETEA. Several of my colleagues have approached me recently with additional project fixes. In some cases, I have had to say no to their requests because they either submitted them too late to be considered with our negotiations with the House; the request went beyond the scope of a technical fix; or because the proposed fix was to a House project which the House objected to the change. My Committee colleagues and I have been attempting to get this bill through the Senate since shortly after the President signed SAFETEA in 2005.   However, a variety of issues have come up that have prevented our bringing the bill to the floor.  In the interim, we have been open to discussing with members their fixes, giving ample time to get requests in.   As in any bill of this nature there comes a point when we have to close it to further changes.  We have reached that point.

 Our colleagues in the House have passed this bill, I believe, seven times but each time it comes over to the Senate it has been held up. The bill before us along with the manager’s substitute amendment is the commutation of negotiations between the House and Senate. Any changes to the bill at this point will require the concurrence of the House or the bill will not proceed. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to understand that if you are planning on filing an amendment, before the Chair and I can agree to it, we need to determine if our counterparts in the House will accept the change. If they do not, we will oppose your amendment.

In conclusion, I want to assure colleagues that I appreciate your responsiveness to our numerous requests to advise the Committee of your requests thereby assisting us to help you. If we were unable to satisfactorily address your concerns in this bill, please remember that there will be additional opportunities to do so when reauthorization of SAFETEA gets underway next year. The Chair and I welcome your input in the process and look forward to working with each of you.

###