The Week Ahead: April 14-18

Next week the Senate is scheduled to take-up the Highway Technical Corrections Bill (H.R. 1195). Senator Inhofe expects a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1195, Monday around 5:30pm, with amendment filing later that day, and debate to follow Monday night and possibly Tuesday.  Senator Inhofe continues to work closely with members on both sides of the aisle in order to make sure the bill passes the Senate next week.

 
Background on H.R. 1195

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 are also included. Furthermore, universities and other transportation research will not receive their fully intended funding, and states will be unable to use millions of dollars in transportation funds that were authorized three years ago.

Sub-Committee Hearings

The EPW Committee will also conduct two subcommittee hearings, one focusing on the issue of pharmaceuticals in our nation’s drinking water, as well as the issues surrounding surface transportation and the global economy.

Tuesday, April 15, 10:00 a.m. SD406

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.”

On Tuesday, April 15 the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality will hold a hearing entitled, “Pharmaceuticals in the Nation's Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue.”  On March 10, the Associated Press reported that traces of pharmaceutical contaminants were found in municipal water systems across the country.  The report also highlighted that many municipal water providers do not test for any presence of pharmaceuticals, including Tulsa.  Following these reports, Senator Inhofe sent a letter to Administrator Johnson expressing his concern about the report and asked EPA to convene a working group of relevant agencies and industry to look for potential solutions to reduce overall pharmaceuticals in our water supply. 

Because public confidence in our nation’s drinking water is imperative, Senator Inhofe believes the administration should continue to explore ways to mitigate disposal of pharmaceuticals without burdensome regulations on industry or local government. Industry has done an exceptional job working with government agencies to learn more about environmental effects and any potential health risks.  This hearing should alleviate misguided fears and highlight current and potential governmental and non-governmental partnerships. The hearing on Tuesday will focus on available scientific data, as well as government and industry partnerships. 

Panel I:

The Honorable Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert M. Hirsch, Ph.D., Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey

 

Panel II:

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

David Pringle, Campaign Director, New Jersey Environmental Federation

 
Wednesday, April 16 10 a.m. SD406

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearing entitled, “Surface Transportation and the Global Economy."

The hearing will examine infrastructure investment abroad and in its impacts on our future competitive trade advantage in an increasingly global Economy.  The Committee will evaluate the requirements in transportation investment needed for a healthy economy, especially in regards to just-in-time manufacturing, logistics, and other trade.   Our goal is to bring attention to the disparities in surface transportation investment in this country and the negative unforeseen effects this will have on our economy, as we are continually out-paced in infrastructure spending by some the fastest growing economies in the world.  Witnesses will discuss infrastructure investment in other countries and how that affects our competitive advantage. They will also discuss the needed domestic investment in order to handle added demand from trade.

Witness List:

Siva Yam, President, United States of America-China Chamber of Commerce

John Isbell, Global Director of Delivery Logistics, Nike

Ray Kuntz, Chief Executive Officer, Watkins and Shepard Trucking
On behalf of the American Trucking Associations

Edward Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

 

Democrats Face Ferocious Infighting Over Global Warming Legislation Boxer-Dingell Differences Likely Mean No Global Warming Bill in 2008

Friday April 11, 2008

 
While Senate Democrats, lead by Sen. Barbara Boxer, vow to play “hardball” with any Senator come Election Day who stands in the way of passing Lieberman-Warner, Boxer may need to start playing hardball with members from her own party – over in the House of Representatives. Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich,) chairman of the House Energy Committee, warned this week that “ferocious infighting” could hinder passage of any global warming cap-and-trade bill.

 

In addition, an April 9 Congress Daily headline further revealed “Expectations Dim For Passing Climate Change Legislation” and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told reporters this week that “he had his doubts that a major cap-and-trade bill would become law in 2008.”  

 

During a March 12 press conference with liberal special interest groups by her side, Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, vowed to “pull” the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill from the Senate Floor if “weakening amendments” are added during the scheduled June 2008 floor debate. Senator Boxer also pledged to use the failed bill as a political tool during this election year. “We will hold those who weaken the Bill accountable in November,” Boxer said in March. This is in sharp contrast to Boxer’s earlier December 5, 2007, comments expressing hope that nuclear and other amendments will be “addressed when we get to the Floor.” 

Meanwhile, over in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich), chairman of the House Energy Committee – responsible for climate change legislation in the House -- warned this week that “ferocious infighting” could delay passage of any House bill, reports Ian Talley of Dow Jones News Service in his April 8 article, Key US Rep Outlines Draft CO2 Policies; Warns Of Infighting, Dingell. Talley also reports that Dingell’s global warming proposal would, unlike Senator Boxer’s bill, “encourage nuclear and coal-fired generation, take into account the timeline needed to develop carbon sequestration technology, and help avoid a squeeze on natural gas supplies.” (See: Committee Mark-Up Exposes Serious Flaws in Lieberman-Warner Bill; Nuclear Not Included in Cap-and-Trade Bill DEMOCRATS OPPOSE AMENDMENT TO ENSURE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS; DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST AMENDMENT TO PROTECT POOR FROM RISING ENERGY COSTS;  DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING JOBS ) 

With the leading Democrats in the House and Senate feuding, it won’t be long until the American public begins to question why Senate Democrats continue to push for Senate Floor action on a bill that has little or no chance of passing the Congress, let alone being signed into law by President Bush. American’s concerned about the economic downturn, the slumping housing market and rising gas prices, are unlikely to tolerate a ‘de-stimulus’ climate bill that will further exacerbate their economic pain. 

Bad news for the beleaguered climate bill continues to accumulate as estimates for the bill’s economic harm become clearer. Below is a sampling of the latest news about the Lieberman-Warner bill and international cap-and-trade efforts.

News Round Up

Key House Democrat Warns of ‘Ferocious Infighting’ Over Climate Bills – April 8, 2008 – Wall Street Journal

Excerpt: The chairman of the House energy committee Tuesday broadly outlined his draft climate change policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but warned that "ferocious infighting" could delay passage of any bill. Veteran lawmaker Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said his proposal would encourage nuclear and coal-fired generation, take into account the timeline needed to develop carbon sequestration technology, and help avoid a squeeze on natural gas supplies. Industry experts say Dingell will likely provide a foil to Congressional Democrats who are seeking to implement more aggressive emission reduction targets in early years in an effort to combat global warming. A slower implementation of emission cuts would correlate to lower prices per ton of emission produced in early years. "It will involve some of the most ferocious infighting that we've ever seen," Dingell told an energy conference, referring to the political divisions on the Hill. "It's not just a possibility, it's a reality," he said. Although he said he would like to have legislation passed by the end of the year, given the complexity of the issue and disagreements among lawmakers, Dingell indicated next year was a more likely scenario. Last month, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she would withdraw climate change legislation expected to head to the Senate floor in June if there were any attempts to "weaken" the bill.

Expectations Dim For Passing Climate Change Legislation – April 9, 2008

Excerpt: House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell and key Senate aides in both parties today gave guarded and sometimes pointedly pessimistic opinions about whether Congress can get climate change legislation signed into law this year. Dingell -- speaking to reporters after delivering remarks at a conference hosted by the Energy Information Administration -- declined to provide a timetable for delivering a global warming bill this year. He also echoed the sentiments expressed by House Speaker Pelosi last week. "I think the speaker is coming to the same necessary conclusion I am and that is we can only move so fast," Dingell said. Whether legislation can be adopted this year "is not something which I can intelligently address this morning," he said at the conference. Dingell told reporters that his idea of instituting a carbon tax as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is likely not going to score political points. "I'm a realist," he said. "A carbon tax has not seemed to achieve much in the way of support." Pelosi told reporters April 1 that she hopes to push a plan this year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a market-based emissions cap-and-trade program, but added that she thought it unlikely that Congress could pass a bill acceptable to Democrats this year. In his remarks to the conference, Dingell emphasized his committee is trying to finish a bill "as quickly as possible [but] we are more concerned with doing it well." He said his committee is "receiving very little help from the administration." Bush administration officials and many Republicans have been wary of the economic effects of a cap-and-trade program.

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill Called a 'Pork' Bill by Greens! (Note: The ‘pork’ will flow to a federal carbon board described by Missouri Senator Kit Bond as a ‘Rube Goldberg’ approach. LINK )

Excerpt: But [Lieberman-Warner] is so big, so complicated, and gets the important details so wrong that it will make it extremely politically difficult to unpack. Worse, it will give green cover to politicians who don't want to take hard actions on GHG reduction but were able to get some pork thrown back to their district. (And make no mistake: with over $1 trillion of GHG revenue that has to go back to the Beltway before it can get distributed, there is one heck of a lot of pork-centive in this bill.) […]My fear? That GHG (greenhouse gas) policy has been a holy grail of the environmental community for so long that we may well be throwing support behind a bill with a great headline but lousy details. We deserve better ... but only if we demand better. 

 

Green Ink: Lambasting Lieberman-Warner – April 9, 2008 – Wall Street Journal Blog

Excerpt: Environmentalists are increasingly leery of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, which some say does too little, too late. Grist takes a look at the bill’s biggest weaknesses, and points to one big fear in the environmental community: The desire for any climate bill is so strong, the end product may be far from perfect. Canadian cement companies grapple with their own fears of climate regulation, invoking the specter of “carbon leakage” to Asian cement producers, in the Vancouver Sun.

 

Senate GOP goes behind closed doors to debate Lieberman-Warner bill – April 9, 2008 - E&ENews (subscription required)

Excerpt: Senate Republicans wrestled with the need for a major change in U.S. global warming policy today during a closed-door luncheon in the Capitol. The 90-minute meeting gave more than 40 GOP senators a chance to have their say on a climate bill that Senate Democratic leaders have scheduled for floor debate in early June. Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) led the discussion, taking opposing sides on legislation that Warner co-authored with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). After the meeting, Inhofe told reporters he did not broach the scientific evidence linking humans to climate change but instead focused his arguments on the costs of reducing U.S. emissions. "I think people realize that the cap-and-trade solution, whether it's Warner's or somebody else, doesn't work, hasn't worked and won't work," Inhofe said. "I think the majority of people had that view." In an interview, Warner said he was not so sure he changed any minds. "It was just a good, free, open discussion," he said. "If I look back on this, I was the one who finally got this side of the aisle to begin to think on it." The climate-themed luncheon -- in the planning stage for three months -- marked the first time that the Senate Republican conference had met on the issue, said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the conference chairman.

 

Senate to Take Up Cap-and-Trade Bill June 2; Boxer Draws Line in Sand on State's Rights – April 10, 2008 – BNA

Excerpt: The Senate will take up legislation that would mandate U.S. reductions in greenhouse gas emissions June 2, with supporters bracing themselves for a flurry of amendments seeking to strengthen, weaken, or even scuttle the bill, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said April 9. "We are going to bring this bill to the floor June 2. That is the date" scheduled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), according to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the environment committee. Boxer, who has already warned opponents that she would pull the cap-and-trade bill (S. 2191) off the floor if they appear to be on the verge of seriously weakening the measure, said she would spend the next four weeks seeking support from 60 senators needed to end the threat of a filibuster and begin floor debate. […] Boxer told BNA after her summit remarks that she has already "drawn a line in the sand" in opposing any amendments that would preempt California and other states from requiring deeper emissions cuts than those set out in the federal legislation. "That's the line in the sand for me," Boxer said. "We either allow the states to do more and encourage them to do more if they want to, or there is not going to be" progress on reducing U.S. emissions. She added that she would pull the bill if opponents appeared to have the votes needed to pass an amendment preempting state action.

 

THE $100 BILLION WINDFALL: WHY UTILITIES LOVE CAP-AND-TRADE – April 7, 2008 – Wall Street Journal Blog

Excerpt: Another cautionary tale about how not to fight climate change: By giving away greenhouse-gas emissions permits for free, Europe may hand power companies windfall profits of up to 71 billion euros—about $100 billion—and undermine the fight to curb emissions. That’s the conclusion of a new study carried out by carbon-market analysts Point Carbon and commissioned by environmental group WWF, a long-time supporter now critical of Europe’s ill-starred emission-trading scheme. […] As the U.S. mulls its own climate-change bills, all three Presidential candidates advocate requiring utilities to pay for at least a majority of their emission permits. Yet some big American power companies are demanding they get their permits for free. The report from Point Carbon — a consultancy that stands to gain from a bigger market in emission permits — frowns on free credits:

 

Maryland Global Warming Bill Dies ‘Amid Worries The Bill Would Cost Jobs’ - The Associated Press, 8 April 2008

Excerpt: An ambitious plan to address climate change by slashing carbon emissions in Maryland failed in the closing hours of the legislature Monday amid worries the bill would cost jobs. A House committee considering the bill to cut carbon emissions 25 percent by 2020 voted not to forward the measure, killing it for the year. The measure narrowly passed the Senate and appeared headed toward passage, but environmental activists couldn't work out a compromise with unions and industry groups that feared the plan would cost jobs. […] The Department of Environment was charged with enforcing the cuts, and industry groups worried the enforcement could bring draconian measures that would put factories out of business. More than 50 steelworkers wearing hardhats greeted lawmakers as they came to work Monday, and they whooped 12 hours later when they learned the bill was rejected. "I think our presence made a big difference," gushed Bill Goodman, an electrician at Sparrows Point, the state's largest steel mill. The loss was a setback for environmental activists, who pushed the measure unsuccessfully last year, too.

 

International cap-and-trade called ‘abject failure’ – April 8, 2008 – Benny Peiser in Financial Post

Excerpt: Instead of the passionately celebrated "breakthroughs" that used to be the hallmark of international climate conferences, today they often end in deadlock and disappointment. At the heart of the solidifying standoff lies a growing realization that the entire Kyoto process has been an abject failure. Not only did it fail to slow (never mind reduce) carbon-dioxide emissions over the last 15 years or so, climate hysteria is pitting rich and poor nations against each other, dividing the world into opposing camps that embrace incompatible strategies and competing demands. […] Developing nations insist that the rich world unilaterally commit to stringent and legally binding CO2 emissions cuts at home. At the same time, they also demand massive wealth transfers from the West in the form of 'clean' technologies and financial funds for adaptation and energy initiatives.As a result of promoting environmental alarmism, Western governments find themselves trapped in a perilous, yet largely self-constructed catch. As long as climate change is elevated as the principal liability of industrial countries, as long as Western CO2 emissions are blamed for exacerbating natural disasters, death and destruction around the globe, green pressure groups and officials from the developing world will continue to insist that the West is liable to recompense its exorbitant carbon debt by way of wealth transfer and financial compensation. Ultimately, there is now a growing risk that the whole global-warming scare is creating more anti-Western hostility and further loss of influence on the international stage.

 

Paper: Cutting carbon emissions futile – New Zealand Herald April 7, 2008

Excerpt: Will cutting our carbon emissions really make any difference to the planet? The answer is a definite no, and most of the proposals to do so are ludicrously inadequate anyway. Take Australia, for example, where about 135 million incandescent light bulbs are in use. The Government wants to ban them by 2010 to cut the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year by 2012. If this sounds a lot, bear in mind that it represents a reduction of just 0.14 per cent. American journalist Robert Samuelson derides such tiny cuts as part of a feel-good political culture that is mostly about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and is made worse by politicians who pander to green constituents who want to feel good about themselves. Grandiose goals are declared, he writes, but measures to achieve them are deferred or don't exist. He adds that it's all just a delusional exercise in public relations that, while not helping the environment, might hurt the economy. Samuelson is right that such puny cuts are ludicrous as a means of preventing global warming. Why? Just take a look at China, which is scheduled to build 562 coal-fired power plants over the next five years. That's more than two a week.China's annual carbon emissions of 1.3 billion tonnes have already overtaken those of Europe and will exceed those of the United States this year. […]This is the most troubling aspect of the entire global warming issue: why should the rest of the world go out of its way to reduce greenhouses gases, when China belches out fumes and tears down forests with impunity? The relatively trivial savings the rest of us make in greenhouse gas emissions are more than offset by China's determination to pollute as much as it wants.

 

Carbon Copy: Europe’s Still Not Cutting Emissions  -  April 2, 2008 – Wall Street Journal

Excerpt: It’s not a surprise but a bummer nonetheless: Greenhouse-gas emissions are still rising in Europe despite lots of autographs on the Kyoto Protocol and an elaborate cap-and-trade system. Early analysis of data out today from the European Commission shows that emissions rose about 1.1% last year to 1.9 billion metric tons. That’s after similar increases in 2005 and 2006. Banks, carbon traders, utilities, and everybody else with a dog in the fight has been watching the numbers to see what they mean for the price of carbon emissions on the European exchanges, which account for more than 70% of the $60 billion global carbon market. With emissions rising—and Europe hoping to finally clean up its act by strangling the supply of free emissions permits—the smart money says carbon will get pricier. European carbon permits traded in London rose about 4% today to 23.45 euros.

 

NO CLIMATE AGREMENT WITHOUT INDIA, CHINA – April 2, 2008 - Rediff India

Excerpt: The US Congress will not ratify any global climate change agreement if India is not a party to it. Congressman James Sensenbrenner, the senior most Republican was among the high-powered delegation of US lawmakers, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that visited India last month. This delegation focused on global warming and energy among other issues. Sensenbrenner said, "While we have differences on how to accomplish greenhouse gas emissions that will be debated extensively in the House of Representatives in the weeks and months to come, one thing we are united on is that for any type of a global warming agreement to work it has to be worldwide in nature." "And that includes the participation of India and China," he emphasised. Sensenbrenner, of Wisconsin, who is the ranking GOP member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, warned that "if we fail to engage India and China in a global treaty, then what will happen is that the United States will simply be at an economic disadvantage as the Chinese and the Indians keep expanding their economy and using coal and other types of fossil fuels to do so." Saying that there is bipartisan consensus among both Republicans and Democrats, the lawmaker reiterated that "any treaty that does not include India and China and the Third World, will not be ratified by the US Senate," and pointed out that this has been made clear by Senator John F Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, as recently as last week during his trip to East Asia.

 

AUSTRALIA 'REVERTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE' – April 3, 2008 - The Australian

Excerpt: THE Australian delegation to climate change talks in Bangkok has turned the clock back to the Howard era by failing to back binding greenhouse targets, environment group Greenpeace says. Negotiators from more than 160 nations are taking part in the first round of UN-led talks since last December's Bali meeting to advance plans for a new global greenhouse treaty. According to Greenpeace activists in Bangkok, Australian delegation leader Jan Adams yesterday reverted to Howard government rhetoric of supporting US-style, long-term aspirational goals rather than binding targets. […]

Indian groups reject carbon dioxide emission restrictions - Howrah News, 2 April 2008

Excerpt: The Civil Society Report on Climate Change has been prepared by 41 civil society organisations present in more than 30 countries. The report has also summarised background papers of some eminent names in the field who have been critical of "undue hype" given to climate change. […] It argues that technology advancement in the field has been overlooked. Questioning the "scaremongering" over the Kyoto Protocol by the agencies involved, this new report says that the post-Kyoto Protocol hype is an attempt to convince developing countries that a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement with binding targets and timetables for emission reductions is necessary. The report has suggested that instead of pushing emission restrictions and "failed" policies, governments should focus on reducing barriers to economic growth and adaptation methods. Charging the IPCC report of being "inconsistent" in the forecasts of disease incidence, saying that millions of people continue to suffer even when the so-called climate change effects are not obvious, which means that what is needed is for the international community to address the problem of vaccination and treatment to these diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. The report argues that death rate from climate related natural disasters has drastically reduced since the 1920s due to economic growth and technological development and it is going to further reduce regardless of climate change.

 

Related Links:

Inhofe Statement on EPA’s Analysis of Lieberman-Warner 

1.8 MILLION JOBS MAY BE LOST BY 2020, NEW STUDY SAYS  

 

Boxer Waves White Flag on Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill 

 

Are House Dems' climate bill efforts on track, or off the rails? – Greenwire - 03/10/2008

 

Los Angeles Times editorial Strips bare the rhetoric and reality about cap-and-trade legislation

 

New CBO Study Further Exposes Cap-and-Trade Flaws   

 

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill 'Running into Resistance' 

 

Senator Bond’s Diagram of New Bureaucracy Required by Lieberman-Warner

 

Look Closer at Global Warming ‘Solutions’

 

LIEBERMAN-WARNER GLOBAL WARMING BILL LOSING MOMENTUM

 

NEW ANALYSIS: CARBON MANDATE WOULD HARM CONSUMERS, JOBS AND ECONOMY

 

Watch the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's new TV 30 Second ad opposing the Lieberman-Warner bill  

 

ANALYSIS CITED BY BOXER INCLUDES HUGE NUCLEAR ENERGY GAINS, DESPITE HER STAUNCH OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR ENERGY  

 

Boxer's Rejection of More Time for Climate Bill Rings False  

 

CBO Warns that Cap-And-Trade Approach Could Create ‘Windfall' Profits & Harm Poor  

 

Washington Times Editorial says Lieberman-Warner Bill equals 'pie-in-the-sky requirements for cutting greenhouse gases by unattainable amounts'  

 

Lieberman-Warner will lead to ‘higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced GDP'  

 

Climate Bills Will 'Require a Wholesale Transformation of the Nation's Economy and Society'  

 

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill Meets Resistance from Unexpected Sources  

 

Climate Bill Will Cost ‘Hundreds of Billions of Dollars' - Lieberman Concedes  

 

INHOFE SLAMS NEW CAP-AND-TRADE BILL AS ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'  

 

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT AT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL WARMING  

 

Senator Inhofe Exposes Costly Global Warming 'Solutions'  

 

INHOFE, BOXER DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING ON SENATE FLOOR  

 

Cutting Emissions May Cost U.S. Economy Up to $1.8 Trillion  

 

Senators Propose $4500 Climate Tax on American Families

 

 

Inhofe Welcomes EPAs Improvements to the Risk Assessment Process

April 10, 2008

 

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency made their announcement of changes to the risk assessment process under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Senator Inhofe welcomed EPA's annoucment and made the following comments:

 

“Increased transparency and proactive outreach to the scientific community and the public are critical to improving EPA's scientific process,” Senator Inhofe said. “I have been advocating for these critical changes since 2003 when I became chairman of EPW.

 

“The development of important risk assessment information should have always been transparent to the public and regulated communities. Contacting federal stakeholders, the scientific community and the public early in the risk assessment process will help identify available data and research, making the science on which these risk assessments are based more credible.  It will also prevent delays later in the process.  EPA will now be a more responsive, transparent and effective agency as a result of these changes.”

CBO Report Exposes Lieberman-Warner Bills $1.2 Trillion Tax Increase

April 10, 2008

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate for the America's Climate Security Act – S. 2191 (Lieberman-Warner) global warming cap-and-trade bill. Senator Inhofe commented on the cost estimate stating: 

"Today’s CBO analysis reveals that the Lieberman-Warner bill will impose a $1.2 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years," Senator Inhofe said. "As the economy continues to face uncertain times and as energy prices soar, this new analysis shows once again why this bill is wrong for America. CBO also says the bill would increase entitlement spending by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

 

"Senator Boxer just does not get it. Recognizing the tremendous burden this bill would have on the economy, she is attempting to use fuzzy math to cover up the enormous tax increase American families will face. Knowing the bill as reported out of the EPW Committee would add significantly to the deficit, the sponsors of the bill slipped a secret amendment to CBO in order to claim the bill would have no impact on the federal budget. They hope the American public will focus on this budget gimmick instead of the enormous tax increase that this bill would impose. Adding insult to injury, hundreds of billions of the new entitlement spending will be controlled by an unaccountable seven person board."

 

Legislative Hearing on S. 1870, Clean Water Restoration Act

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Madam Chairman, our Committee has examined the issues surrounding Clean Water Act litigation and jurisdiction several times, most recently in December.  Thank you to all of today’s witnesses who have taken time out of their busy schedules to testify before the Committee this morning.  It is no secret this Committee has long advocated for policies that are protective of overall environmental health.  I am proud of my years of service advocating for policies that improve our nation’s drinking and waste water facilities without overburdening our communities.  I have also worked tirelessly on legislation that protects and preserves wetland resources while respecting private property rights.

 

Today’s legislative hearing will focus on S. 1870, the Clean Water Restoration Act.  This bill, as currently written, will expand federal jurisdiction authority in a way that pushes the outer limits of Congress’s constitutional role.  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 and pass legislative language that increases uncertainty and increases an already litigious environment.

Many supporters of this legislation argue that the bill simply clarifies and restores the scope of federal jurisdictional waters and will return the regulatory authority and certainty to the pre-Rapanos-Carabell Supreme Court decision era.  I believe this statement is grossly misleading. 

S. 1870 would strike the words “navigable waters” and replace the term with “waters of the United States” defined as “…ALL interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries.” Most egregious, though, is that the definition establishes federal authority over not only all waters, but “…to the fullest extent that these waters or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.”  In 1972, the framers of the Clean Water Act chose to tie federal regulatory jurisdiction to the term “navigable waters,” limiting jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause.  By striking any reference of “navigable” from the law, this bill will expand the federal reach under the Act far beyond what the authors intended.

In other words, by striking any reference to the Commerce Cause, all waters –  regardless of size or significance, and importantly, any activities affecting all waters – could be regulated by the federal government until the courts determine the federal reach was unconstitutional.  For example, individual property owners could have a small depression in their field or yard that can collect water after a good rain.  If this bill passes, those waters become jurisdictional and all activities that could affect that depression or the waters in that depression must be permitted under section 404. Further, homeowners could potentially need national pollutant discharge elimination system permits (NPDES) for storm water running off their property or from the gutters on their roofs.

The effects of this legislation go far beyond the legal nuances and potential litigation.  As you are well aware, Madam Chair, many of our local governments, including cities and counties across the country, face increasing financial burdens to improving their water and transportation infrastructure.  I have received letters and testimony from all over the country opposing this legislation, including this testimony from National Water Resources Association, Western Urban Water Coalition and Western Coalition of Arid States.  They say that this legislation will “…unduly constrain state and local flexibility, while greatly increasing the time and costs associated with meeting water supply and wastewater treatment obligations, [and] timely completion of necessary projects, such as those authorized in the recent WRDA legislation.”  In the last five years, construction costs have risen over 30%.  As a former mayor, I can tell you local governments and land owners do not have the resources to delay projects for years while waiting on a permit that will unlikely lead to cleaner water.  I am pleased to have Mr. Brand here to speak to the concerns of local governments.

We also have Mr. Smith here from Montana, conveying many concerns from our agricultural community.  The current costs of producing the world’s safest food supply are increasing, and adding layers of regulatory hurdles makes it harder for the family farmer to survive.  The narrowly written savings clause only partially protects the agricultural community and opens families to potential litigation and fines for what is now considered routine work.  I would like to include in the record the letter signed by 24 state agriculture associations and several state sportsman’s associations.

Finally, advocates of this bill assert it as the save-all for clean water, but it will likely do nothing to improve overall water quality.  Increasing federal bureaucracy and requiring property owners to go through a lengthy permitting process for activities that may affect a puddle on their private land hardly constitutes protecting our nation’s water.

As I’ve said before, the federal government owes it to the American public and individual property owners, including the millions of homeowners across the country, to have a clean, concise and constitutional definition of “waters of the United States.”  The Clean Water Restoration Act does not meet any of these goals and will simply result in more lawsuits and more confusion.

I look forward to all of our witnesses’ testimony on S. 1870.

Ranchers and Local Officials Concerns Regarding CWRA 2007 Legitimate

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Posted on The Hill's Congress Blog 

Hearing on the Nomination of David R. Hill to be Assistant Administrator (General Counsel) for the Environmental Protection Agency

Thursday, April 10, 2008 

I'm pleased we are holding this nominations hearing today.  However, I must say that I'm very concerned about the Senate's lack of progress on nominations.  Several critical nominations have been sitting idle on the Senate Calendar for months due to political power plays by the Democratic leadership in a partisan effort to wrestle the Constitutional power to nominate individuals from the President.  Prior to the Easter break, this Committee had seven nominees who had been delayed by the Democratic Leadership as a result on this political act.  Two of these nominees waited eight months and another waited 11 months before they were confirmed on March 13^th.  Three nominees favorably reported by this Committee remain on the calendar.  They deserve fair and swift consideration by the Senate.  Please understand, Madame Chairman, that this criticism is aimed at the Democratic Leadership, not at you.  You have been reasonable in handling nominees.   

That said, I'm pleased to support David Hill's nomination EPA's General Counsel.  Mr. Hill is currently serving as General Counsel at the Department of Energy.  Prior to Senate confirmation in 2005, Mr. Hill served as Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy from 2002 to 2005.  He is a well qualified candidate for this very important position.