In The News
Editorial: Jim Inhofe: EPA regulations more damaging than deficit
Tuesday September 6, 2011
"That cost is just huge, and people don't recognize it," Inhofe said.
Inhofe said EPA greenhouse gas regulations alone are estimated to cost $300 billion to $400 billion a year in lost gross domestic product. The greenhouse gas regulations cost the equivalent of 2 percent of the national economy and would result in $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue, he said.
Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, cited several other EPA regulations that are in various phases of implementation. Among those:
Ozone standards that would result in an estimated $676.8 billion in lost GDP and would cost 7 million jobs by 2020.
Politico Pro: Ozone decision: The final green straw?
Friday September 2, 2011
Posted by Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov
In Case You Missed It...
Politico Pro
Ozone decision: The final green straw?
By Darren Goode
9/2/11 4:19 PM EDT
For green groups, President Barack Obama's retreat on ozone standards is yet another reason to question how aggressively they want to support his reelection in 2012.
Even more bruising: The realization that they may not have much choice.
"We have no place else left to go but home," said one official at a major environmental group, speaking on background Friday. "So the enviros come out looking weak once again because of today and we're all screaming bloody murder.
"But you know what," the official said. "At the end of the day, I don't think the White House is unhappy to hear us complain."
That could be a dangerous assumption for the administration to make, warned activist Ralph Nader, the former Green Party candidate who siphoned off enough votes in 2000 to deny the White House to Al Gore.
"I know [Obama] thinks all these people voted for him and they have nowhere to go in 2012 because the Republicans are worse," said Nader, speaking during yet another day of White House protests against a proposed tar-sands-oil pipeline from Canada. "But they can stay home.
They can closet their enthusiasm. They can end their contributions to him. And that's not what he needs to be reelected."
A similar warning came from MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben, calling the ozone decision just the latest in a series of disappointments.
"Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama's reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal," Ruben said in a statement. "This is a decision we'd expect from George W. Bush."
The White House insisted that electoral considerations had nothing to do with Obama's announcement - on the eve of the Labor Day weekend - that the administration is withdrawing efforts to tighten EPA's rule on ozone until the 2013 cycle.
"This has nothing to do with politics, nothing at all," one White House official said to reporters on a conference call following the announcement.
Still, the move earned raves from Republicans and industry groups that have mounted fierce attacks on the president's regulatory agenda - though they also served notice that they plan to continue trying to upend a host of other EPA regulations.
Friday's decision unquestionably provides Obama with breathing room by punting on perhaps the most controversial of all the pending EPA rules. It also came on a day when the new jobs numbers underscored the fact that voters will head to the ballot box next November with the unemployment rate at a dangerously high level for Obama's prospects.
On the other hand, the decision further sours the mood of green activists at the center of Obama's liberal base. They were already disenchanted with the administration's failure to enact major climate legislation, its consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, and other issues.
Some greens weren't offering any predictions on what the decision means for 2012.
"It's sort of premature to say what we're going to do in the elections today," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters's senior vice president for government affairs. "I think obviously the administration has done some great things. But there's also been some real disappointments, and today's ozone announcement is at the top of the list."
Other groups were livid.
"This is a new low for President Obama," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "He sold out public health and environmental protection to appease polluters."
Both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association said the decision means more litigation from environmental groups that had been challenging what they called a weak ozone rule from the George W. Bush administration.
And still others tried to put the best face on the administration's overall green agenda, while urging Obama to fight harder next time.
"The decision creates a clear blemish on an otherwise positive record of this administration in supporting initiatives that reduce pollution," said the Center for American Progress, adding the action "is deeply disappointing and grants an item on Big Oil's wish list at the expense of the health of children, seniors and the infirm."
"The president must continue to fight and defeat efforts to block and weaken other clean air health safeguards," CAP added.
The White House may have calculated that its base in the environmental community will still be there for Obama, especially given the track record of leading GOP presidential candidates who question the science behind climate change and oppose a host of EPA regulations.
The first environmental official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision potentially "makes Obama look like a centrist and will garner him more votes among independents and people in the middle than he would lose due to any lack of enthusiasm from his base in the environmental community."
"I believe that is their calculation," the official added. "I don't know what else it could be. This decision today is not based on science and good health."
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson looked to help stanch the bleeding by issuing a statement emphasizing that the agency "will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act." She also defended the Obama administration's performance on the environment.
"Since Day One, under President Obama's leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans by reducing our exposures to harmful air pollution like mercury, arsenic and carbon dioxide."
Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, sounded the same theme in a blog post Friday on what she called the administration's "record of success" in promoting "cleaner air and a stronger economy."
In a letter to Jackson on Friday urging her to pull back on the ozone rule, White House regulatory chief Cass Sunstein said EPA has already pushed ahead on a series of regulations - on issues such as heavy-truck emissions, mercury and cross-state air pollution - that "are projected to reduce ozone as well."
"Cumulatively, these and other recently proposed and finalized rules count as truly historic achievements in protecting public health by decreasing air pollution levels, including ozone levels, across the nation," he wrote.
But Friday's decision "puts even more pressure on them to aggressively move forward in other areas," Sittenfeld said.
Obama still has chances to reinvigorate the environmental base in other upcoming EPA air quality initiatives - including finalizing mercury and air toxics standards for power plants - as well as in the State Department's pending decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
"People are going to look at a record as a whole and like in any race will compare to the other candidate," said Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund. "Does the president then issue an air toxics standard that gets real reduction from utilities? That will make a difference. Will the president approve the Keystone XL pipeline? That will make a difference."
Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and ranking member on the Natural Resources panel, emphasized as well that the administration needs to move more boldly on other regulations.
"In light of today's decision, I urge the president to direct EPA to move forward aggressively and use its full authority under the Clean Air Act to address the other clean air challenges facing the nation - from carbon pollution that is warming our planet, to mercury and other toxic air pollutants that are making the air unsafe to breathe," Markey said in a statement.
Overall, the reaction from key congressional Democrats was relatively mild - strangely so, some Republicans said.
"They let him get away with murder here," one Senate GOP aide said. "If this had been the Bush administration, I can guarantee you there'd be outrage and we'd be holding hearings."
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a statement that she was "disappointed" but also "heartened" by Obama's announcement.
"I strongly believe that protecting air quality based on the science leads to more job growth because it brings so many positive health benefits to our workers," Boxer said. "Although I am disappointed with this decision to delay action, I am heartened by the president's commitment to vigorously oppose any efforts to dismantle the Clean Air Act and the progress that we have made."
But Republicans and industry officials are just as forcefully suggesting that Obama needs to use the ozone decision as a precedent.
"Absolutely, we think the announcement today is very good news for the economy," American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard said in an interview. "And we hope it's a new direction and positive sign that the administration understands that many of these regulatory proposals have had a chilling effect on job creation."
API and other major business and industry groups met last month with White House chief of staff Bill Daley and other administration officials about the ozone rule. "They've heard our message now with this," Gerard said.
Just this week, Obama - in a response to a request by House Speaker John Boehner to identify upcoming regulations with an estimated annual cost topping $1 billion - said the ozone rule was the most expensive of them all, with an estimated cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year.
Boehner spokesman Mike Steel wrote that Friday's decision "is certainly a good first step, and we're glad that the White House responded to the speaker's letter and recognized the job-killing impact of this particular regulation. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats' agenda of tax hikes, more government ‘stimulus' spending and increased regulations - which are all making it harder to create more American jobs."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor last week announced plans to hold votes this fall to repeal the administration's "10 most harmful job-destroying regulations," including seven from the EPA. That had included penciling in a winter vote repealing the ozone rule.
On the week of Sept. 19, the House will vote on the TRAIN Act, a bill to require an interagency committee to analyze the cumulative effects of EPA rules. The bill would also delay two EPA rules meant to curb air toxics and soot- and smog-forming pollution from power plants.
Bills to force the EPA to delay and re-propose air toxics rules for industrial boilers and cement plants are slated for floor votes the week of Oct. 3. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings on those bills next Thursday.
The GOP will also take aim at EPA rules that haven't been finalized or even proposed.
In October or November, the GOP leaders intend to hold votes on legislation to prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as hazardous waste. The agency has proposed two competing options for regulating coal ash but hasn't yet issued a final rule.
###
NPR: Federal Worker Accused Polar Bear Scientist
Friday September 2, 2011
That's according to a new letter sent to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) from the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General.
For months, Monnett has been under investigation by that office. Agents have repeatedly asked him about an influential 2006 report he wrote on his observations of apparently drowned polar bears. The report became a symbol of the danger of melting ice and climate change.
Until now, what sparked the investigation had been a mystery.
Supporters of Monnett charged that the investigation amounted to a witch hunt against the scientist, whose work has implications for climate change and drilling in the Arctic.
"In March 2010, the OIG received credible allegations from a seasoned, career [Department of the Interior] employee, that acts of scientific misconduct may have been committed by one or more DOI employees," says the letter to Senator Inhofe, which is signed by Mary Kendall, acting inspector general for the Department of the Interior.
Tulsa World Editorial: Congress must act soon to extend highway funding
Friday September 2, 2011
But even though the Oklahoma senator and the president agree on extending the current transportation law, some members of the Oklahoma congressional delegation aren't on board.
Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the powerful Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, even had some mild criticism for his counterparts over in the House. He urged House members to be more aggressive on transportation, suggesting they now are "goosy" about spending out of fear of being deemed big spenders by tea partiers.
Inhofe said he agrees with Obama's call for extension of the highway measure "because we've got to keep shovels in the ground in Oklahoma."
"We have a crisis in America," he added.
On the other hand, Inhofe also criticized Obama for his failure to show leadership on the issue earlier. "Where has he been?'' Inhofe asked.
There's no denying Inhofe is as conservative as it gets, but he's also an avowed supporter of infrastructure who seeks funding for such projects regularly.
Tulsa World: GOP questions highway plan
Thursday September 1, 2011
"I will support this because we've got to keep the shovels in the ground in Oklahoma,'' said U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, a top player on transportation issues in Congress.
"We have a crisis in America.''
Still, Inhofe made it clear he was unhappy with what he called Obama's Johnny-come-lately remarks. He described the president's record on infrastructure as abysmal and blamed him for making the current environment on transportation so toxic.
"Ironically, President Obama noted the need to have a conversation about a long-term highway bill. The question that must be asked is, where has he been?'' Inhofe said.
"To date, he has failed to provide any transportation proposal to Congress. Meanwhile, there are efforts on a highway bill in both the House and the Senate. But given Obama's record on infrastructure, maybe it's better that he has stayed out of the discussions.''
Wash Examiner: How Washington pays Big Green to sue the government
Thursday September 1, 2011
Multiple federal laws allow individual citizens to sue certain agencies for failing to enforce the law. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is not only a favorite target of such suits, it has practically become a partner with Big Green in "sweetheart" deals prearranged to expand agency power by settling legal challenges brought by the outside groups -- allegations of inadequate air pollution controls, for example -- that courts wouldn't likely approve, but then become case law in closed-door settlements that are never made public.
Outraged at the endless stonewalling by EPA officials that they had grilled in hearing after hearing, the top Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., -- requested that the GAO audit all the money flowing from the U.S. Treasury into the pockets of environmental lawyers during the last 15 years, 1995 to 2010.
The Washington Examiner obtained a copy of the resulting GAO report, "Environmental Litigation: Cases against EPA and Associated Costs over Time," which the senators will release today. The most significant thing about the 55-page report is what it doesn't tell us.
The report devotes more than a dozen busy pages to tables of payments. But it doesn't highlight the fact that just one plaintiff, Earthjustice (with 2010 assets of $39.2 million, according to its latest available Internal Revenue Service Form 990), received 32 percent of all attorneys' fees paid to EPA litigants. That's $4.6 million for one group's legal fees.
Wash Examiner Editorial: Stop using tax dollars to fund Big Green lawsuits
Thursday September 1, 2011
First, despite the fact that "no aggregated data on such environmental litigation or associated costs are reported by federal agencies," the agency's investigators were able arrive at some useful estimates. The Department of Justice spent at least $43 million from 1998 to 2010 defending the Environmental Protection Agency in court, while the Department of Treasury paid about $14.2 million from 2003 through 2010 to successful plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and associated costs. The EPA paid about $1.4 million from 2006 to 2010 to plaintiffs. Most of the plaintiffs represented Big Green groups. But those figures almost certainly underestimate the true amount of such costs because, GAO said, "the key agencies involved -- Justice, EPA and Treasury -- maintain certain data on individual cases in several internal agency databases, but collectively, these data do not capture all costs." In other words, federal officials don't know how many tax dollars are paid to Big Green environmental groups and their lawyers who sue the government.
As The Washington Examiner showed last September with its "Special Report: Big Green and how the enviroleft is crippling the economy," the major players in the environmental movement are lavishly funded by private contributions from individuals and foundations. And many of them also receive hundreds of millions more dollars in government grants and contracts, so it's not as if these groups are unable to pay their legal legions out of their own coffers.
Politico Pro: GAO: Greens rake in the green by suing EPA
Wednesday August 31, 2011
The report, released Wednesday, prompted GOP lawmakers to accuse major environmental groups of profiting from taxpayers by suing the federal government.
But greens say they're acting in the public interest - and the fact that they've won fees means the courts agreed with them that the EPA was breaking the law.
National and local environmental and citizens' groups received 75 percent of the $14.2 million in attorney fees that the Treasury Department paid in environmental cases against the EPA between 2003 and 2010, the GAO reported.
Green groups received 84 percent of the $1.4 million in attorney fees paid by the EPA between 2006 and 2010, the report found.
Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana, top Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released the report along with a breakdown of the top recipients of attorney fees from EPA litigation.
Obamas Infrastructure Record
Wednesday August 31, 2011
January 26, 2011 Inhofe Reaction to Obama's State of the Union: I'd like to take a moment to comment on last night's State of the Union. I have always said that government has three spending responsibilities: defense, infrastructure, and unfunded mandates. We've heard President Obama talk about infrastructure before, but there has been little follow through. For example, the President's so-called Stimulus bill, which was largely sold to the American people as a way to improve our infrastructure, actually spent less than 3 percent on repairing the nation's crumbling roads and bridges. Another example was this past Labor Day's announcement where he promised a $50 billion plan for infrastructure, but no action ever followed and he never spoke of it again. In light of this, I was interested to hear him highlight our infrastructure needs again last night. I hope he actually follows through. If he is serious this time, I am committed to working with him and Senator Boxer, as I have always done, to address our nation's infrastructure needs.
2010 Obama Labor Day Infrastructure Roll Out "Lousy Idea"
October 14, 2010: OBAMA'S CONFUSION ON INFRASTRUCTURE; Now says: "No such thing as shovel-ready projects" In a New York Times blog post, previewing a Sunday Times interview with President Obama about lessons learned in his first two years in office, an interesting quote stands out: the President now believes, "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects." How things change. Indeed, how can one forget the mantra of 2009, when President Obama routinely touted "shovel-ready" projects to sell his stimulus bill (check out this Washington Post article from January 2009). We look forward to reading the entire Times article on Sunday, but for now, it seems the President can't quite get a handle on what to do about infrastructure. On Labor Day, the President rolled out a new $50 billion infrastructure policy. But it was an unserious proposal, flawed in many respects, as members of his party clearly understood.
September 14, 2010 Denver Post Editorial: Editorial: Political theater or poor policy? Whether or not President Obama's plan to spend $50 billion on transportation is a ploy to help fellow Dems, it's a lousy idea. President Barack Obama's latest plan to spur the economy back to health has rightly found a new group of detractors. This time, though, it's his fellow Democrats, many of whom are locked in tight races, who are saying no. Their rush to say no makes us wonder if the president put forth a serious plan or if this latest blueprint to stimulate the economy, in part by spending $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and airports, is more political theater than legitimate policy. Several Colorado Democrats who supported past stimulus spending - and at much greater levels - are rejecting the president's proposal.
September 8, 2010: Oklahoman Editorial: Politics apparent in Obama's new economic proposals: DESPERATION wafts from President Obama's new proposals to jump-start the economy - $50 billion in infrastructure spending and $300 billion in tax breaks for business. Coming as they do less than two months before the midterm congressional election, it's hard not to chalk them up to politics.
Democratic Congressman Calls Obama's Economic Advisers Pick Out of Touch
Tuesday August 30, 2011
The blunt critique of Krueger, a labor economist picked Monday to head the president's White House Council of Economic Advisers, encapsulates the frustration some centrist Democrats feel toward the president.
"If the No. 1 issue is the economy and jobs, you don't get a labor economist from Princeton," said Boren, an Oklahoma centrist who is not seeking reelection next year. He argued that independent voters want the president to bring in someone with more business experience. "You get a Jack Welch-type, someone from the business world."
Boren argued that the Obama administration is insufficiently business-friendly.
