In Case You Missed It…
The Independent [UK]
Animal rights activists condemned as guinea pig farm gives up fight
By Jonathan Brown and Robert Dex Published: 24 August 2005
Scientists have furiously condemned the animal rights movement after the closure of a controversial guinea pig farm which it was claimed would seriously hamper medical research in Britain. The owners of the Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, finally caved into pressure after a bitter and often illegal six-year battle with activists which culminated in the unsolved theft of the remains of the owner’s late mother-in-law. Hundreds of people were terrorised by the protesters. Threats had been made against anyone who was associated with the family who own the farm, who were themselves the subject of paedophilia smears. In what was described as a “guerrilla terrorist campaign” hundreds of properties were damaged in the local village, mainly in night attacks, and electricity supplies were cut. The closure is a blow to the police, the scientific community and the Government, which have fought tooth and nail to keep the operation running. … The decision to close the farm was made public in an anonymous statement by a family member. Another unnamed relative simultaneously appealed for the return of the remains of Gladys Hammond, who died aged 82. Her body was stolen from her grave in October last year. The relative said the decision to close the guinea pig farm had removed the need for the animal rights activists to keep her remains. The statement, made on behalf of the owners, David Hall and Partners, said the breeding centre would undergo a phased closure to ensure the welfare of animals. The Halls plan to return to full-time traditional farming next year. “They have no plans to be involved in any way in the breeding of animals for medical or scientific research,” the statement concluded. The Government said the move was a family decision and it was understood that an alternative supply of animals had already been established. The closure comes just a month after tough new laws came into force designed to stop “economic sabotage” against research bodies and their suppliers. The offence is punishable by five years in jail. A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said: “The Government is determined to tackle extremists who harass or threaten those involved in vital, life-saving scientific research and is committed to a policy of reducing, refining and replacing the use of animals in research.” Professor Tipu Aziz, a consultant neurosurgeon at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, who uses primates in his research into Parkinson’s disease, called the closure as a “tragedy”. He said: “It’s my feeling that the treatment of this family proves that animal rights activists are acting like terrorists.” Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences, who was attacked by extremists brandishing pick-axe handles, said: “It was a succession of criminal acts over many years, some utterly despicable, and the perpetrators of these crimes need to be punished.” Simon Festing, the president of the Research Defence Society, said guinea pig research had contributed to 23 Nobel prizes in medicine. “We still need to use them in certain important areas, such as the study of lung disease, deafness, allergies and the development and testing of new treatments,” he said. Philip Wright, the director of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, demanded greater protection of those involved in animal research. Staffordshire Police have mounted a multimillion-pound operation to protect the farm and the village from attack, responding to 460 incidents since 2003 and arresting 60 people. It has also deployed thousands of officers policing the regular protests outside the farm. Inspector David Bird, of the force’s specialist Environmental Protest Unit, said the announcement would have no impact on the search to find those who had desecrated Mrs Hammond’s grave. The Animal Rights Militia claimed responsibility for the incident. Two people arrested over the theft were later released without charge. … . (emphasis added) Click here for the full text of the article.
In Case You Missed It… Los Angeles Times EDITORIAL PETA’s crude analogies August 22, 2005 …Known for its provocative ads, PETA has created yet another firestorm; this time exhibiting scenes of some historic atrocities and comparing them to images of animal abuse (www.peta.org/AnimalLiberation/display.asp). … We understand the need of groups such as PETA to shock society out of what it considers to be widespread indifference to a moral wrong. But this insulting and shrill approach, while guaranteed to garner PETA attention, does its cause a disservice. PETA already had to apologize this year for making an inappropriate Nazi analogy — a common pitfall of demagogues — when it compared the plight of factory animals to the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust. Another apology may not be far behind. PETA is now “rethinking” its campaign, putting on hold a tour of the art scheduled for 17 cities. What is especially insulting about PETA’s campaign is the heinous historical pedigree of comparisons between slaves and animals. The argument that blacks and Native Americans were inferior animal-like beings was one of the justifications behind human enslavement and forced labor. If it wants to be more effective at getting its message across, PETA will have to embrace a second meaning for its acronym — People for the Ethical Treatment of Analogies. Click here for the full text of the editorial.

In Case You Missed It…

The Washington Times

Animal terrorism

By Doug Bandow

Published August 22, 2005

Click here for the full text of the op-ed.

International terrorism, exemplified by the September 11 attacks and most recently in London, may pose the greatest security threat facing America. But domestic terrorists also lurk among us, mostly in the guise of animal-rights and environmental activists.

They “see themselves in a war against the entire government and industrial democracy itself,” explains Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, notes: “These are unbelievably mean-spirited people” who “operate in a classic terrorist organization mode.”

Over the last decade, the Animal Liberation Front has committed 700 criminal acts, according to the FBI. ALF activists recently broke into a car belonging to a pharmaceutical executive’s wife, stole her credit cards and charged $20,000 in charitable “donations.” At the University of Iowa, ALF members destroyed laboratory equipment, removed animals, ruined research papers and threatened school employees. …

In May the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on ecoterrorism. FBI officials cited more than 1,200 attacks since 1990 causing roughly $112 million in damage.

“There is nothing else going on in this country over the last several years that is racking up the high number of violent crimes and terrorist actions,” argued John E. Lewis, bureau deputy assistant director. The fact that no one has been killed is just “dumb luck,” in his view. …

Frankie Trull worries: “My fear is that in this climate they have managed to drive away really brilliant minds.” PETA doesn’t look much like al Qaeda, and the groups are very different. But the danger of animal-rights and environmental terrorism is exacerbated by the enabling role of supposedly more mainstream groups such as PETA. We shouldn’t wait until people die to combat this threat. 

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Reagan.

 

 

 

 

Carbon Cap Holdouts Tour Alaska

Friday August 19, 2005

Fact of the Day: Friday, August 19, 2005 Carbon Cap Holdouts Tour Alaska While Scientific Evidence in Central Asia Confirms Natural Implications for Current Warming Trend As a handful of Senators who support mandatory controls on carbon dioxide toured Alaska this week in search of any evidence supporting the conclusions they have already reached, some attention has been shifted to seven scientists who recently published a study showing that the current warming trend is “the result of nothing more than the most recent and expected upward swing of this natural climatic oscillation.”[1] One Northeastern Democrat senator traveling with the codel stated at a press conference that she didn’t “think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science,” and that “[t]here are still some holdouts, but they are facing a losing battle.” But science consistently demonstrates that there are doubts man is tied to the current warming trend, and some 17,000 “holdout” scientists doubt that anthropogenic (human-induced) emissions are behind any catastrophic warming. Earlier this summer, sixty “holdout” senators also rejected the implementation of carbon dioxide caps as an answer to warming. Clearly an overwhelming majority of the Senate shared some sort of doubt. Fact: Scientists working in Central Asia recently analyzed diatoms and sediment in Lake Baikal, Russia to better understand the region’s climactic history.[2] Their work shows evidence that the current warming trend is likely the result of natural climate shifts. According to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, here’s what they found[3]: - “The results of this study help to confirm the widespread existence of the Medieval Warm Period, which was likely as warm as, or even warmer than, the Current Warm Period.” - “They also demonstrate the existence of the natural millennial-scale climate oscillation that produced the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and, as we would argue, the Current Warm Period. Certainly, anyone can recognize that the first two of these warm and cool climatic states were completely natural in origin, as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration varied but little over their combined time periods.” - “[T]he fact that the warming that brought the world the Current Warm Period began around 1750 AD, or nearly 100 years before the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, should be evidence enough to argue that the planet’s current warmth is the result of nothing more than the most recent and expected upward swing of this natural climatic oscillation.” (emphasis added) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, www.co2science.org [2] Anson W. Mackay, D.B. Ryves, R.W. Battarbee, R.J. Flower, D. Jewson, P. Rioual and M. Sturm, “1000 years of climate variability in central Asia: assessing the evidence using Lake Baikal (Russia) diatom assemblages and the application of a diatom-inferred model of snow cover on the lake,” Global and Planetary Change, Volume 46, Issues 1-4, April 2005, Pages 281-297 [3] Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, www.co2science.org
In Case You Missed It… The Morning Call [Allentown, Penn.], Op-ed Don’t impose mercury limits that will cost Pa. jobs August 17, 2005 Union families, electric generators, and the coal industry support reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. But let’s do it in a way that makes a real difference in reducing health risks and without threatening our jobs. A recent proposal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for Pennsylvania to adopt its own mercury limit ignores a fundamental fact about mercury emissions — they are a global problem and travel hundreds and thousands of miles. Globally, power plant emissions make up about 1 percent of mercury emissions. … Businesses, consumers and workers within the Commonwealth would be disadvantaged if the Department were to implement a state-specific mercury rule that is more stringent than the federal rule. This is particularly true now that Pennsylvania’s electric industry has been restructured and in-state generation facilities must compete with power producers in neighboring states. The higher costs resulting from a Pennsylvania-specific rule would likely result in more power being generated in those neighboring states. Emissions from those out-of-state plants, including mercury emissions, would then be transported into Pennsylvania, negating any potential environmental benefit to the Commonwealth. And how much environmental benefit can be expected from a Pennsylvania rule compared to the federal rule to begin with? Available research data suggests little or none at all. In its regulatory impact analysis of the federal mercury rule, EPA found that completely eliminating mercury emissions from power plants produced negligible additional reductions in deposition compared to the reductions produced by the federal rules. This is because the federal rules result in very large decreases in the type of mercury that is most readily deposited onto land and water surfaces — reactive gaseous mercury. Given these considerations, coupled with the fact that emissions from Pennsylvania’s power plants represent a tiny percentage of the mercury we can be exposed to, we believe any reasonable person must ask whether any incremental environmental benefit can be expected from any Pennsylvania unilateral approach to controlling mercury emissions from power plants. Let’s reduce the health risks from mercury in ways that make good scientific and economic sense, and that minimize job losses, by adopting a federal approach to controlling mercury emissions. Edward D. Yankovick Jr. is international vice president for District 2 of the United Mine Workers of America, George Ellis is president of the Pennsylvania Coal Association, Donald C. Siegel is international vice president for the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers, and Douglas L. Biden is president of the Electric Power Generation Association. Click here for the full text of the op-ed.
In Case You Missed It… Court rejects enviros’ plea to halt EPA rule Greenwire August 4, 2005 (5:30) Darren Samuelsohn The Bush administration’s regulatory approach for controlling mercury pollution from power plants notched a key victory today when a federal appeals court rejected a motion from environmental groups seeking to immediately block the U.S. EPA from implementing it. In a one-page order, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the environmental coalition challenging EPA’s regulations did not make a sufficient case to stop the rules from going forward. The court also denied plaintiffs’ request for expedited consideration of their lawsuit against the EPA mercury rules. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Council of Maine were among the environmental groups seeking to stop the Bush administration’s mercury plans. Specifically, they had asked the court to halt EPA’s March 2005 rule that overturned a Clinton-era finding that mercury must be regulated under a section of the Clean Air Act that requires nearly all coal- and oil-fired power power [sic] plants to install “Maximum Achievable Control Technology.” Environmentalists briefed the court last month that their arguments met four critical factors for obtaining a stay, including that they are “likely to prevail on the merits” when the lawsuit is ultimately heard in court. Further, the environmentalists said a stay is necessary because EPA’s regulatory decisions have caused substantial public health risks. But EPA responded to the environmental groups by arguing that a stay would leave mercury emissions unregulated in the United States. Additionally, the Bush administration told the court that stopping the rule now would “frustrate ongoing implementation” of EPA’s new mercury program, which establishes a cap-and-trade system that aims to lower emissions from current levels of 48 tons down to 15 tons over the next two decades. The court’s ruling in favor of EPA cited existing precedent in finding that environmentalists did not make a strong enough case. “Petitioner has not satisfied the stringent standards required for a stay pending court review,” the order said. … . Click here for the full text of the story (subscription required)
Fact of the Day: Friday, August 5, 2005 Understanding Mercury Deposition in the U.S. “…[R]esults from ancient remains are consistent and provide evidence that humans have always been exposed to naturally occurring mercury through fish and marine mammals in their diets.” Use of Traditional Foods in a Healthy Diet in Alaska: Risks in Perspective Second Edition: Volume 2. Mercury Scott M. Arnold, Ph.D. John P. Middaugh, M.D. Section of Epidemiology Alaska Division of Public Health Department of Health and Social Services State of Alaska December 2, 2004 The League of Conservation Voters, in its latest liberal partisan “E-jab,” states that “Mercury is a real horror show. It comes out of power plants, into our air, and causes brain damage in children. And now the Bush Administration actually wants to increase the amount of mercury in our environment.” Fact:Actions to significantly reduce mercury emissions from the nation’s power plants are being taken with a recent federal regulation promulgated by the Administration and even more effective Clear Skies legislation pending in Congress that will cut mercury emissions 70 percent. However… It’s important to understand that power plants are a minor source of emissions. There are a number of mercury sources in the country, and not all sources are anthropogenic (man-made) -- Combustion: -Automobiles -Factories -Incinerators -Power plants Naturally-occurring: -Forest fires -Geologic deposits -Geysers -Underwater cracks in the Earth’s crust -Volcanoes (surface and underwater) All of these sources contribute to mercury deposition throughout the United States and the rest of the world. It is generally believed that emissions from U.S. power plants contribute only one percent to total global emissions of mercury. Perhaps the largest source of mercury is nature: volcanoes, forest fires and oceans. For example, according to a report on research conducted in 2003, Yellowstone National Park “could emit as much mercury as all the coal-fired power plants in Wyoming.”[1] Indeed, some estimate, when oceans are factored in as a source, that U.S. power plants may account for as little as 0.002 percent of total global emissions. That said, mercury will be present in the human bloodstream, regardless of whether power plants are regulated by a cap-and-trade emissions reduction program or a more costly but less effective maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard – or even if all combustion sources are eliminated. Consider that one study provides evidence showing traces of mercury in human beings as far back as the 5th Century. Also, eight 550-year-old Alaskan mummies (four adults and four infants) that were tested contained levels of mercury twice as high as pregnant Alaskan women today. The study’s authors concluded that, “All of these results from ancient remains are consistent and provide evidence that humans have always been exposed to naturally occurring mercury through fish and marine mammals in their diets.”[2] The map below shows the extent of mercury deposition in the United States from all sources in 2001: The map below shows the extent of deposition in 2001 attributed to power plants alone: Deposition in 2020 – with power plants removed from the equation: While introducing S. J. Res. 20, a resolution to disapprove of the Bush Administration’s mercury regulation – the first ever – Senator Leahy stated: “You cannot even see my state on EPA’s maps showing mercury pollution because so much of it is being dumped on us from upwind power plants. Vermonters and New Englanders have been waiting for decades for EPA to take action so that our lakes can be cleaned up.” Interestingly, EPA’s maps indicate that even if it was possible to completely eliminate mercury emissions from power plants, there would be virtually no effect on mercury deposition in New England, particularly Vermont. When considering the EPA’s maps above, Mercury Deposition from All Sources in 2001 and Mercury Deposition from Non-Power Plant Sources in 2020, the range in deposition levels is unchanged. In both cases, deposition levels fall somewhere between 10-15 micrograms per square meter. Even after removing power plants from the equation, the fact is that deposition is roughly the same in southern New England – because power plants are not the only sources of mercury. Compared with the current mercury regulation, a MACT standard, if one was technologically-feasible, would reduce mercury deposition in the United States by only about 2 percent more – but at a cost of up to $358 billion. The current regulation, with its significant 70 percent emissions reduction, is estimated to cost a tiny fraction of that – $2 billion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Mike Stark, “Scientists find major mercury emissions in Yellowstone,” Billings Gazette, October 22, 2003 [2] Scott M. Arnold, Ph.D. John P. Middaugh, M.D. Section of Epidemiology Alaska Division of Public Health Department of Health and Social Services State of Alaska, “Use of Traditional Foods in a Healthy Diet in Alaska: Risks in Perspective, Second Edition: Volume 2. Mercury,” December 2, 2004, p. 4

Hurricanes and Political Hot Air

Thursday August 4, 2005

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 Hurricanes and Political Hot Air “It’s a terrible paper, one of the worst I’ve ever looked at.” Colorado State University meteorologist William Gray, Hurricane prediction pioneer A new study purports to indicate a link between hurricanes and global warming. The study by Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to show that hurricanes are growing more destructive because of global warming. Fact: Experts continue to thoroughly dispute any link between hurricanes and global warming. In this case, there is a genuine scientific consensus. Leading scientists commenting on the study say: -Christopher Landsea, research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami: “The question though is: How has [Emanuel] treated the data? What’s the methodology? Is it accurate? Because he’s -- to be able to see the global warming signal, he’s had to reduce substantially the wind speeds during the 1950s and 1960s.” (Transcript, Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN. August 1, 2005) -More Landsea: “I’m not convinced yet that we are seeing a global warming signal in the hurricane activity. We still need to reassess all the hurricanes themselves, and try to get our database cleaned up, because it’s a very messy database that Professor Emanuel has had to work with. And we’re trying to address that with some climate work.” (Transcript, Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN. August 1, 2005) -Roger A. Pielke, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy at the University of Colorado: “The contention that storms are getting stronger ‘could be true, but the significance of the trend he’s identified is dwarfed by the damages from coastal development,’ Roger A. Pielke, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy at the University of Colorado, said in an interview.” (Scott Allen, “Hurricanes more powerful, study says,” The Boston Globe, August 1, 2005) -William Gray, Colorado State University meteorologist who pioneered hurricane predictions: “‘It’s a terrible paper, one of the worst I’ve ever looked at,’ said Gray, who does not believe that cyclone intensity worldwide is increasing. He also questioned Emanuel’s contention that human actions, such as the burning of oil and other fuels, have caused the surface of the ocean to warm. Gray said the ocean-temperature increase is natural.” (Scott Allen, “Hurricanes more powerful, study says,” The Boston Globe, August 1, 2005) Even the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a bountiful source of climate alarmists’ most absurd contentions, states that, “Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century.” Dr. Gray found that hurricane activity follows a natural 20 to 30 year cycle in ocean currents. Researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that droughts follow a natural “20 to 30 year periodicity.” In other words, there is no connection between global warming and extreme weather. “All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin,” Dr. Landsea writes. “Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small.” Dr. Landsea noted that the most recent science shows that “by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century.” Despite a contrasting consensus and the lack of sound evidence supporting a link, don’t be surprised to see climate alarmists attempt to point to this study as proof. During the 2004 Presidential cycle, Environment2004 and other liberal special interests used tragic hurricane devastation to scare voters. According the Hill newspaper, “The [League of Conservation Voters’] main focus has been on such swing areas as Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake counties, where the group identified voters with high “persuade-ability” rankings. The [League of Conservation Voters], a member of the Environment2004 coalition, promises to spend $3million dollars in targeted counties in Florida. A group called Scientists and Engineers for Change posted a billboard in Florida that read: ‘Global warming = Worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn’t get it.’” At the very least, that’s compelling evidence of a link between liberal partisan politics and climate alarmism.

Tulsa World

August 1, 2005

Hats off to U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe for staying the course and crafting a transportation bill that will net Oklahoma more highway money than ever before. The good news comes at a time when the state is growing increasingly desperate in its search for resources to address burgeoning transportation needs.

Inhofe, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was instrumental in putting together the historic $286.4 billion transportation bill, which by all reports will meet the approval of the White House.

The previous federal transportation funding measure actually expired in 2003, but impasses over how much money to pump into highways have blocked a final measure. Inhofe had pushed through a $318 billion bill last year but the Bush administration balked at that amount of spending.

The new version will provide an unprecedented level of funding for Oklahoma highways through 2009 -- an increase in the annual average from $424.7 million to $558.6 million, according to Inhofe's staff.

In addition, several critically needed projects will get huge infusions. The Interstate 44 widening project between Yale Avenue and the Arkansas River is scheduled to get $110 million, and a like amount will go to the Interstate 40 improvement project in Oklahoma City.

Several other Tulsa area projects, including the Mingo Creek trails system and the I-44 and 193rd East Avenue interchange project, also will get substantial amounts.

"This bill is historic for Oklahoma," said Inhofe. "I am extremely proud of the increase in funding the state will receive from this legislation." He should be. No other state leader has achieved such a feat in modern Oklahoma history.

Fellow members of the Oklahoma delegation were unanimous in their praise for Inhofe's accomplishment. Rep. Ernest Istook, who represents the Oklahoma City area, also made the salient point that the state has not taken on enough responsibility with regard to projects like the I-40 expansion.

But that's because the state simply doesn't have the resources to take on huge projects like an interstate reconstruction, or even the many smaller projects like the hundreds of substandard bridges dotting the state. Transportation leaders hope Oklahomans will approve motor-fuels tax increases in September to further bolster transportation funding, but most observers agree the tax measure is doomed.

Some politicians would see the highway funding Inhofe has obtained as just plain ol' pork. Most Oklahomans undoubtedly feel differently. With this funding, economic development, improved safety and thousands of jobs are heading our way.

Click Here for the editorial: http://www.tulsaworld.com/ArchiveSearch/search/ArchiveArticle.asp?ArticleID=050801_Op_A15_Highways

http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2005/Final/W_080105_A_15.PDF

 

 

THE WEEKLY CLOSER

Friday July 29, 2005

Quote of the Week… “As much as this is legislation that will significantly boost and enhance our nation’s transportation system, it is also a jobs bill that will create employment opportunities for millions of Americans.” Senator James M. Inhofe (on the Highway Bill) July 28, 2005 Inhofe Praises Agreement Reached In Highway Bill Conference SAFETEA-LU Significantly Improves the Nation’s Transportation Infrastructure, Creates Jobs, Ensures Safety and Protects the Environment Sen. Inhofe praised the agreement reached by Senate and House conferees yesterday on the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). “As much as this is legislation that will significantly boost and enhance our nation’s transportation system, it is also a jobs bill that will create employment opportunities for millions of Americans,” Senator Inhofe said. “According to the Department of Transportation, every $1 billion of federal money invested in highway improvements creates more than 47,500 jobs. That $1 billion also yields $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout other sectors of the economy. A safe and effective transportation infrastructure will only help grow our economy, and I’m delighted we’re on the verge of delivering this important victory to Oklahomans and all Americans. “This bill is historic for Oklahoma. I am extremely proud of the increase in funding the state will receive from this legislation. Under the formulas, our bill includes about 32 percent more funding over the previous highway authorization bill. As I’ve often said, one of my top priorities as Chairman of the EPW Committee has been to increase the rate of return for donor states such as Oklahoma. This highway bill increases Oklahoma’s formula rate of return to 92 cents per dollar in 2008.” The House of Representatives passed the SAFETEA-LU conference report earlier today 412-8, and the Senate approved the legislation this evening 91-4. The Senate version of the bill passed by an 89 to 11 vote in May. Senator Inhofe managed its consideration on the Senate floor. The bill will now go to the President’s desk for his signature. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users: Provides $244 billion in guaranteed spending over the 2005-2009 period ($286.4 billion including 2004) for maintenance, and improvement of the nation’s roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety which creates millions of job opportunities across the country. Includes nearly $90 billion more funding over TEA-21 levels (current law). Provides a rate of return phased in to 92 percent by 2008 for donor states. Dedicates 2007 revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA) to increasing donor states’ rates of return up to 92 percent from 91.5 percent. Treats all states fairly, guaranteeing a minimum of a 19 percent growth rate over TEA-21 levels. Provides more than a 39 percent average annual increase over TEA-21 levels for Indian reservation roads and bridges, including new funding categories and increased flexibility, for which Oklahoma tribes are among the largest recipients. Consolidates existing safety programs into a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to provide increased funding and greater flexibility to states. The HSIP is designed to meet the growing safety needs and fatality and injury rates in each state through a strategic highway safety plan. Improves the Environmental Review Process for transportation projects. Authorizes the EPA’s Clean School Bus Program. Increases the effectiveness of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement program. Provides funding for a variety of important projects in Oklahoma, including: Ø $220 million for improvements to Interstates 40 and 44; Ø $50 million to improve bridges in the State; and Ø $35 million to widen and make improvements to the Ports-to-Plains Corridor. Return to the top Ý Inhofe Applauds Passage Of Energy Bill Conference Report By The Senate Notes Inclusion of Key Requested Provisions Sen. Inhofe today applauded the Senate’s passage of the conference report for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Senate approved the legislation, which will soon be presented to the President for his signature, 74-26. “Our nation has been in need of a comprehensive national energy policy since the Reagan era,” Senator Inhofe said. “The Energy Bill, while not perfect, is an important step forward in fulfilling that need. Specifically, we need to enhance our energy reliability and improve the nation’s energy security. This bill will help accomplish that. “I am very pleased that the bill’s conferees saw fit to include a number of provisions I had requested. With these additions, we’ll be able to expand refinery capacity, expand the use of nuclear energy and strengthen security at nuclear facilities, and improve permitting processes so we can explore our domestic resources in an environmentally-conscious manner. These provisions will benefit Oklahoma and the nation as a whole.” Key provisions requested by Senator Inhofe include: Tax incentives for the expansion of refinery capacity and to encourage new facility construction; Improvement of the environmental permitting process on federal lands; Clarification of Congressional intent with regard to uncontaminated stormwater runoff from oil and natural gas sites; Clarification of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction to site LNG infrastructure and improvements in the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act; LUST program reforms to ensure proper inspection of tanks and operator training to prevent tanks from leaking and contaminating groundwater; and Language from three bills recently passed by the EPW Committee that will strengthen nuclear security and safety, and help expand the use of nuclear power. The Environment and Public Works Committee has held a series of hearings that focused on the use of domestic natural resources and energy production. In May 2005, the committee held an oversight hearing to review the permitting of energy projects. Last year, the committee reviewed environmental regulations in oil refining and the environmental impacts of U.S. natural gas production. In June, Senator Inhofe also released a new report, Energy and the Environment: The Future of Natural Gas in America, which demonstrates that environmental policies are driving demand for natural gas while, at the same time, other policies are restricting supply, thus resulting in high prices. Return to the top Ý Did You Know… The Oregon Petition: “No Convincing Scientific Evidence” Liberal environmental special interests and their allies often refer to a consensus, or near unanimous agreement, with regard to anthropogenic emissions and climate change causation. They seem to forget, however, that more than 17,000 scientists dispute those assertions. The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, is a compilation of scientists who state, for the record, their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and similar proposals based on the lack of scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing catastrophic heating and will disrupt our climate. The petition reads as follows: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Each Weekly Closer, over the course of the next year, will reveal, by state, the number of scientists (and only the PhD’s) who have signed on to the Oregon Petition. New Mexico: 156 PhD’s have signed the Oregon Petition. _________________ Bill Holbrook, Communications Director Matt Dempsey, Deputy Press Secretary