June 21 Senate Floor Highlights Inhofe on the Negative Impact of McCain-Lieberman: Ø “It has been stated by one of the proponents of the McCain-Lieberman bill that there are modest costs involved. I will look at the impact. This is the CRA International analysis--not of S. 139 as it was before but as it has been pared down and supposedly will have less economic impact. They said that enacting McCain-Lieberman will cost the economy $507 billion in year 2020. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would mean a loss of 840,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. It will result in 1.306 million jobs in 2020. That is not just a domino effect. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would cost the average U.S. household up to $810 in 2020. The figure used before was $2,700 for the average family of four.” Inhofe on the “Hockey Stick” and Medieval Warming Period: Ø “The Senator from California brought up the hockey stick theory. I believe that deserves more time than we will have tonight. I plan on talking about this tomorrow because when Michael Mann came up with the whole hockey stick theory, he talked about projecting the temperatures over the period of time, until the 20th century came along, and then they went up and off the charts. What he neglected to say, I say to my friend from Connecticut, is that there was another blade to this hockey stick, and that was the blade there during the medieval warming period. It is pretty well established now that the temperatures during the medieval warming period were actually higher than they were during this century--the current blade he talks about. That is significant.” Inhofe on the Scientific Uncertainties Ø “…I will say that when it is referred to that the Senator from Oklahoma will come up with some ‘obscure’ scientist who might disagree, you are right, he will, because there are a lot of them out there who are pretty well educated. The Oregon Petition was made up of 17,800 scientists. I will quote from their report. They said: ‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 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.’ … I think we are going to have an opportunity--at least I will--to talk about many of the other scientists. At least we have to come to the conclusion that there are uncertainties out there. I think the people who try to say the science is settled believe that if they keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will believe it.”

From the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Majority Press Office Volume 1, Number 2 Quote of the Week… “But there is yet one more Senate bill — the Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005 — that would address global warming hysteria as the quintessential junk science phenomenon it is.” Steve Milloy FoxNews.com June 17, 2005 Highway Bill Discussions Continue This week the conference committee continued negotiations on the Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA). The transportation legislation is important because it serves an economic development issue for our neighborhoods, communities and the nation. A safe, effective transportation system is the foundation of a growing economy. According to Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates, every $1 billion of Federal funds invested in highway improvements creates 47,000 jobs. The same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout other sectors of the economy. Unfortunately, there are serious consequences if Congress further delays the process. State contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out to bid. If Congress fails to pass a bill soon, states will not know what to expect in federal funding and the uncertainty will potentially force states to delay putting these projects out to bid. According to a study done by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, an estimated 90,000 jobs are at stake nationwide. This problem is even more serious for northern-tier states that have shorter construction seasons. In many states, transportation departments have advanced state dollars to construct projects eligible for federal-funding in anticipation of action by Congress to increase those funding levels. Without a new bill, states are holding the bag until Congress acts. In the News… Climate Change and the Energy Bill On Monday, columnist Robert Novak called attention to some important points rarely made in the mainstream media. In discussing the debate on climate change, specifically implementation of the flawed Kyoto Treaty, Novak’s White House source correctly asserts that “Kyoto was never about environmental policy … . It was designed as an elaborate, predatory trade strategy to level the American and European economies.” Consider, as Novak also does, Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish vice president of the European Commission, who said the Kyoto Protocol was “not a simple environmental issue . . . this is about international relations, this is about economy – about trying to create a level playing field.” Aside from leveling the “playing field,” mandatory caps on carbon would level the U.S. economy – and provide virtually no benefit. Research has shown that implementing Kyoto and other carbon cap policies would actually have very little effect on reducing temperatures. Assuming climate change alarmists are correct, we would only avoid .008o (Bingaman) -.029o C (McCain-Lieberman) in temperature by 2050. But the costs for implementing such policies are astounding. The National Black Chamber of Commerce and several other groups that oppose McCain-Lieberman cited a study revealing 1,306,000 jobs would be lost by 2020 under the measure. According to the same study, Senator Bingaman’s plan, which is modeled on the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) recommendation, would cost $27 billion a year “with emission reductions results barely different from current baseline emissions.” The study also reveals that the NCEP proposal would result in smaller emissions reductions than the President’s ongoing voluntary program. There is no justification. Americans deserve better than legislation prompted by emotional rhetoric that delivers nothing but great expense. Today in his FoxNews.com column, Junk Science’s Steve Milloy applauded Senate Inhofe’s legislation to prevent costs associated with climate alarmism from being transferred to energy consumers, writing “…the Ratepayers Protection Act, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., would ensure that the costs associated with voluntary actions taken by utilities under the guise of global warming are not passed on to consumers. ‘As the need for those reductions is not grounded in science, it is important that those costs are not passed on to electricity consumers,’ stated the bill's media release. Sen. Inhofe's bill would rightly make utility shareholders, not consumers, responsible for footing the bill of corporate management folly concerning global warming. While it's not likely that companies looking to profit from global warming alarmism will support the Ratepayer Protection Act, the rest of us should rally behind Sen. Inhofe rather than bear the costs of all this hot air scheming.” Read the Majority Press Fact of the Day about the McCain-Lieberman and Bingaman amendments to the Energy Bill. Clear Skies Update As the Democrats’ clean air litigation strategy failed once again this week, the need for President Bush’s Clear Skies legislation continues to prove to be the better way for improving the nation’s air quality. The court this week, presided over by a Clinton appointed judge, rejected a Clinton-era Clean Air Act enforcement case against Duke Energy Corp. At a heavy cost to tax payers, these failed law suits do nothing to improve air quality. Clear Skies legislation provides a better approach for future emissions reductions through a cap-and-trade program and not by filing lawsuits against a handful of companies. Clear Skies will bring the majority of U.S. counties into compliance with the strict new health-based air quality standards implemented last year by the Bush Administration. In Case You Missed It… USA Today, Opposing View Wednesday, June 15, 2005 Evidence is underwhelming By James M. Inhofe Despite the lack of a scientific consensus to warrant such measures, climate change alarmists — in the heat of the summer for the scariest effect — are promoting mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions in the USA. It's a classic case of "ready, fire, aim." Until recently, the foundation of climate change alarmism has been the so-called hockey stick graph. The graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann, a professor at the University of Virginia, and shaped like a hockey stick, purports to show a link between rising temperatures and human activity. Recent Canadian research discredited the graph because of its errors and improper methodologies. An Environment Canada statistician agreed Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Hans von Storch, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called it "rubbish" methodologically, and Dr. Rob van Dorland, an IPCC lead author, said the IPCC "made a mistake by only including Mann's reconstruction and not those of other researchers." In spite of this, some still seek to solve a problem even before it has been established one exists. Two Senate bills would, like the Kyoto Protocol, cap carbon dioxide emissions. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that the costs of implementing Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually. Two international leaders once described Kyoto's intent. Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner on the environment, said Kyoto is "about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide," and French President Jacques Chirac called it "the first component of an authentic global governance." MIT professor Dr. Richard Lindzen sums up the current state of affairs best: "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. ... A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge." Based on that uncertainty, our constituents hardly need "global governance," but they do deserve responsible governance at home. Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee. _________________ Bill Holbrook, Communications Director Matt Dempsey, Deputy Press Secretary

The only real “consensus” in the global warming debate appears to be on the disdain for climate change legislation pending in the U.S. Senate. With the McCain-Lieberman carbon cap amendment continuing to lose support – Environment & Energy Daily reports today another three Democrat senators are defecting and will vote against the amendment – some attention has shifted to Senator Bingaman’s proposed amendment. But this amendment, too, which also caps carbon dioxide, faces strong opposition from liberal special interest groups. Dan Lashof, science director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center says, “This trading scheme is watered down to the point where it is basically ineffectual in getting us on the path,” and “If the Hagel provision is a fig leaf for the climate problem, this (Bingaman provision) is basically a banana leaf.” Fact: Passage of a carbon tax amendment will undoubtedly cripple the American economy, and, at the same time, provide virtually no benefit. The McCain-Lieberman amendment, according to the most recent Charles River Associates (CRA) study, would: cost more than one million American jobs over the next 15 years, impose an additional cost of $810 dollars a year on households, increase already high gasoline prices by 55 cents a gallon, increase electricity prices 20% by 2020, and increase the cost of natural gas by 47%. At such a great expense to the American people, the McCain-Lieberman amendment would only result in the aversion of 0.029ºC in temperature – assuming climate alarmists are correct about causation. The Bingaman amendment, which environmentalists admit would have little or no difference in emission reductions, would cost taxpayers $27 billion annually. Paul Bledsoe, communications director for the non-governmental National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), which forms the basis of the provisions contained in the Bingaman amendment, says, “My concern is that it can be portrayed as a carbon tax – anathema to the GOP.” Bledsoe further states the amendment is more about passing something and less about reducing emissions: “Our view is that the more important thing is timing – to attach a price to carbon emissions as soon as possible.” United for Jobs points out that the recent CRA study reveals that the full NCEP proposal would actually yield smaller emissions reductions than President Bush’s voluntary programs. According to a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Bingaman (NCEP cap-and-trade) amendment would: reduce cumulative U.S. GDP by $588 billion from 2010 to 2025, result in the loss of 171,000 non-farm jobs in 2025, and result in virtually no benefit to justify such costs – the aversion of 0.008oC in temperature by 2050 (again, assuming climate alarmists are correct).

Relying on rhetoric and distortion of fact, anti-nuclear energy activists lobbied Time magazine to their cause this week. The Time article, which prominently featured political special interests from the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Committee to Bridge the Gap – groups well-known for opposing any expansion or use of nuclear energy, paints a dim, but inaccurate picture of the plants’ current state of security. Fact: Security at these facilities is as robust as any industrial structure in the world and is the model for infrastructure security. Further enhancements can be made by providing additional authorities to the NRC, and provisions in legislation offered by Senators Inhofe and Voinovich that was recently reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by unanimous consent would accomplish that mission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is ensuring the security profile at facilities meets potential threats. In fact, the NRC has been seeking additional authorities for security for several years –authorities that can only be granted through legislation and have stalled with the Energy Bill. Virtually every member of Congress who was interviewed by Time is known to be an opponent of nuclear energy and opposed the bill. Time failed to speak with members who embrace the future of nuclear energy for all its benefits and have authored legislation to improve nuclear power plant security with an eye toward that future. Since 9/11, well over $1 billion has been spent to upgrade security at nuclear power plants – an enormous figure when one considers the extraordinary security that already existed prior to 9/11 and the fact this money is being spent at on 64 sites. By comparison, $20 billion has been spent to cover security at more than 18,000 airports nationwide, including 540 commercial service airports and more than 7,800 commercial planes. Environmental special interests who oppose nuclear power are using security as their latest red herring in opposing this energy source. Overnight, environmental groups became experts in national security and the press has too often come to rely on that “expertise.” Under the guise of trying to make America’s nuclear power plants safer, anti-nuclear energy groups are attempting to scare American’s into abandoning any use of nuclear energy. Time’s report also relies on commentary from individuals who are not security experts, and because of its sensitive nature, either would not be privy to or be able provide information that would paint an honest picture. Certainly more can and should be done to secure America’s nuclear power plants, but Americans should be comforted that with decades of innovation and technological advances already behind us, safe, clean nuclear power can and will be an important component of a sound energy policy that will enhance our energy security and reduce pollution. S. 864, The Nuclear Security Act of 2005, accomplishes the following: Ø Authorizes the NRC to allow security guards to possess more powerful weapons (machineguns, semiautomatic, assault weapons, etc.) when they are engaged in the protection of NRC-licensed or NRC-certified facilities. The purpose is to provide licensees and certificate holders, their employees and contractors the ability to possess the weapons they need to effectively protect facilities, equipment, and radioactive materials. Ø Amends current law requiring that NRC conduct security evaluations at each licensed facility at least once every three years. The security evaluations must include force-on-force exercises that simulate security threats, to the maximum extent possible, in accordance with the applicable design basis threat. This provision requires the NRC to initiate a rulemaking to revise the design basis threat (DBT) within 90 days of enactment of this section. It is to be completed 18 months after that date. NRC is also required to address any potential conflict of interest that may influence the results of the exercise. Ø Expands requirement for fingerprinting for criminal history record checks. Those required for fingerprinting include any individual permitted unescorted access to a utilization facility, access to safeguards information, or permitted unescorted access to radioactive material or other property subject to NRC regulation that the Commission determines to be of significance to the common defense or public health and safety. Ø Prohibits a person who has not obtained prior authorization from carrying, transporting, or otherwise introducing or causing to be introduced any weapon, explosive, or other dangerous instrumentality into any facility, installation, or real property regulated or subject to certification by the Commission. Ø Expands existing federal criminal sanctions for sabotage or attempted sabotage of production or utilization facilities during the construction stage of those facilities, if the damage could affect public health and safety during facility operation. Ø Requires the NRC to issue regulations to control the international import and export of radiation sources in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Code of Conduct for Category 1 and 2 sources. NRC is also required to issue regulations to develop a domestic tracking system for discrete radiation sources and any other radioactive material that the NRC determines warrants protection in the United States.