In The News
Washington Independent: Obama Administration Wants It Both Ways on Gulf Spill Liability
Wednesday May 19, 2010
There have been plenty of headlines generated by President Obama's apparent criticism of Senate Republicans for blocking legislation to raise the oil spill liability cap. The implication has been that Obama supports the Democrats' proposal, which would hike the cap from $75 million to $10 billion.
Not so.
Testifying before Congress yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told lawmakers that the administration supports lifting the cap, but the $10 billion figure is "inadequate."
And by "inadequate," he didn't mean that it's too low (some have suggested that there should be no liability cap at all), he meant that it's too high. Lawmakers, he said, have to be "thoughtful" not to impose a cap that pushes smaller oil companies out of business just because they can't afford the drilling insurance.
Not so.
Testifying before Congress yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told lawmakers that the administration supports lifting the cap, but the $10 billion figure is "inadequate."
And by "inadequate," he didn't mean that it's too low (some have suggested that there should be no liability cap at all), he meant that it's too high. Lawmakers, he said, have to be "thoughtful" not to impose a cap that pushes smaller oil companies out of business just because they can't afford the drilling insurance.
Salazar says Dem bill to raise oil company liability could hit smaller drillers
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Senate Republicans may have gained an unexpected ally in their battle against a Democratic bill to raise the cap on oil company liability for offshore spills: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Twice in recent days, Republicans have blocked Democratic efforts to win quick passage of legislation that would raise the economic damages cap from $75 million to $10 billion.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- who have blocked the Democratic bill -- argue that a cap too high would make it financially impossible for smaller and independent oil-and-gas companies to operate offshore.
Twice in recent days, Republicans have blocked Democratic efforts to win quick passage of legislation that would raise the economic damages cap from $75 million to $10 billion.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- who have blocked the Democratic bill -- argue that a cap too high would make it financially impossible for smaller and independent oil-and-gas companies to operate offshore.
Inhofe-Salazar Share Concerns About Menendez Bill at EPW Hearing
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Sen. Inhofe: Secretary Salazar, in what was going to be my opening statement – yesterday, we talked about the Menendez Bill on the floor of the Senate, and I actually took the position of President Obama in that for us to right now raise these limits, as they are trying to do in Senate Bill…I can’t remember which one it is now…3305, I felt at that time that that’s premature, and as the President stated also that if we do that there are other unintended consequences. And we don’t know, I mean later on we may have a better idea as to what level of liability should be set in terms of the change. Now, one of the things that is of interest to me, colloquially, is that…and I’ll read a paragraph out of this letter. This letter is from the executive vice president of the Alliant insurance group, - we have a similar one from Lloyd of London for you – that “if the liability cap is increased to levels we understand are under consideration, in our view only major oil companies and NOCs,” that’s national oil companies, “will be financially strong enough to continue current exploration and development efforts.” You know, our analysis of this is that it would be the five majors plus perhaps the NOCs of Venezuela, China. I guess the question I’d ask of you is – Do you think that’s good? Do you think that’s healthy? And have you given any thought to limits of liability at this time, or do you think it’s premature?
WSJ: What New Lead-Paint Law Means for Homeowners
Tuesday May 18, 2010
A lot of our readers have said, given the choice, they prefer old homes to newly built models.
But what about the lead paint issue?
In today's Wall Street Journal, I report on how professionals who repair or renovate homes and other buildings constructed before 1978 are now required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to strict lead-safe work practices.
Renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous lead dust and chips, which can lead to health problems such as nerve disorders, high-blood pressure and memory loss, the EPA says. The agency estimates that 87% of homes built before 1940 and 24% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead-based paint.
But what about the lead paint issue?
In today's Wall Street Journal, I report on how professionals who repair or renovate homes and other buildings constructed before 1978 are now required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to strict lead-safe work practices.
Renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous lead dust and chips, which can lead to health problems such as nerve disorders, high-blood pressure and memory loss, the EPA says. The agency estimates that 87% of homes built before 1940 and 24% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead-based paint.
Salazar Shares Inhofe Concerns on Liability
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Sec. Salazar: “With respect to the future, it is important that we be thoughtful relative to what that cap will be, because you don’t want only the BPs of the world to essentially be the ones that are involved in these efforts – that there are companies of lesser economic robustness. But having said that, it ought to be high enough so that we make sure that the responsible party will be able to live up to whatever consequences result from their activity.”
Inhofe: Menendez Amendment Good for Big Oil?
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) stopped Democrats' efforts on Tuesday of passing a measure to increasing oil companies' liability for accidents resulting from offshore drilling.
Inhofe objected to a unanimous consent request by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who took a second stab on Tuesday at passing the bill in an expedited way.
Menendez tried Tuesday morning to pass, by unanimous consent, his bill to increase the liability cap for oil companies' offshore drilling accidents to $10 billion, up from the current $75 million cap.
Inhofe objected to a unanimous consent request by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who took a second stab on Tuesday at passing the bill in an expedited way.
Menendez tried Tuesday morning to pass, by unanimous consent, his bill to increase the liability cap for oil companies' offshore drilling accidents to $10 billion, up from the current $75 million cap.
WSJ: New Lead-Paint Law Heavy on Budgets
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Contractors and other professionals who work on building renovations are worried that a new government ruling aimed at protecting against the risks of lead-paint poisoning will add another financial burden to their already distressed sector of the economy.
As of late last month, businesses that repair or renovate older buildings-specifically homes, schools and daycare centers built before the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in housing in 1978-are required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to strict lead-safe work practices. To comply with the new regulation, those working on older sites will need to invest in lead-testing kits, plastic sheeting, respirators, protective clothing and other lead-safety materials.
At least one worker involved in such projects will also need to become certified, at a cost of $300 every five years, and pay out-of-pocket for eight hours of training. Those who don't comply could face fines up to $37,500 a day.
Renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous lead dust and chips, the EPA says. The agency-which estimates that 87% of homes built before 1940 and 24% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead-based paint-launched a public-service campaign last month to warn consumers about the hazards of lead-paint poisoning, which can lead to nerve disorders, high-blood pressure and memory loss.
As of late last month, businesses that repair or renovate older buildings-specifically homes, schools and daycare centers built before the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in housing in 1978-are required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to strict lead-safe work practices. To comply with the new regulation, those working on older sites will need to invest in lead-testing kits, plastic sheeting, respirators, protective clothing and other lead-safety materials.
At least one worker involved in such projects will also need to become certified, at a cost of $300 every five years, and pay out-of-pocket for eight hours of training. Those who don't comply could face fines up to $37,500 a day.
Renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous lead dust and chips, the EPA says. The agency-which estimates that 87% of homes built before 1940 and 24% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead-based paint-launched a public-service campaign last month to warn consumers about the hazards of lead-paint poisoning, which can lead to nerve disorders, high-blood pressure and memory loss.
The Oklahoman: Editorial: New climate bill still bad idea for economy
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Sens. John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman unveiled a modified version of a bill first introduced last year that quickly stalled as critics rightly depicted it as a tax on virtually the entire economy.
Now it's back, its authors hoping time, new terminology and ginned-up urgency will resuscitate an economy-stifling, tax-increasing, job-killing piece of legislation. "It's the same old cap-and-trade scheme that the Senate has defeated three times since 2003," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa. "It has a strong resemblance to the disastrous (House) bill. Only now, along with paying skyrocketing electricity prices, consumers will pay a gas tax." More on that presently.
Kerry and Lieberman now refer to "pollution reduction and investment" legislation instead of "cap and trade." The latter was too easily morphed into "cap and tax" by opponents. By whatever name, it's a stew of subsidies, incentives and rebates to lure support from various quarters while promising not to hit regular Americans' wallets.
Now it's back, its authors hoping time, new terminology and ginned-up urgency will resuscitate an economy-stifling, tax-increasing, job-killing piece of legislation. "It's the same old cap-and-trade scheme that the Senate has defeated three times since 2003," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa. "It has a strong resemblance to the disastrous (House) bill. Only now, along with paying skyrocketing electricity prices, consumers will pay a gas tax." More on that presently.
Kerry and Lieberman now refer to "pollution reduction and investment" legislation instead of "cap and trade." The latter was too easily morphed into "cap and tax" by opponents. By whatever name, it's a stew of subsidies, incentives and rebates to lure support from various quarters while promising not to hit regular Americans' wallets.
Inhofe Floor Speech: The Heartland Institutes International Climate Conference
Monday May 17, 2010
If you've been watching the global warming debate of late, you will notice that supporters of cap-and-trade are getting anxious. They realize that the political environment for cap-and-trade couldn't be more favorable: liberals control the House, liberals control the Senate, and liberals control the White House. But they also realize that time is running out: the November elections are looming, the legislative calendar is shrinking. As Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) put it, this is "the last call" to pass a bill.
That's exactly what Sen. Kerry is trying to do. But he won't get 60 votes; he won't get support from Democrats in the Heartland; and he won't convince the American public that they need a massive new energy tax. I say this with confidence because the bill Sen. Kerry introduced last week with Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) is the same old cap-and-trade scheme the Senate rejected in the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, the Lieberman-Warner bill in 2008, and the Waxman Markey bill in 2009.
And don't forget that, in the Senate, support for cap-and-trade over that time actually dropped. In 2003, they got 43; in 2005, they got 38; and in 2008, with Lieberman-Warner, they got 48. Now remember here, just after the cloture vote on Lieberman-Warner, 10 Democrats, 9 of whom voted for cloture, very quietly sent a letter stating that they could not vote for Lieberman-Warner "in its current form." So subtract 9, and you get 39 votes. That's a far cry from 60.
That's exactly what Sen. Kerry is trying to do. But he won't get 60 votes; he won't get support from Democrats in the Heartland; and he won't convince the American public that they need a massive new energy tax. I say this with confidence because the bill Sen. Kerry introduced last week with Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) is the same old cap-and-trade scheme the Senate rejected in the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, the Lieberman-Warner bill in 2008, and the Waxman Markey bill in 2009.
And don't forget that, in the Senate, support for cap-and-trade over that time actually dropped. In 2003, they got 43; in 2005, they got 38; and in 2008, with Lieberman-Warner, they got 48. Now remember here, just after the cloture vote on Lieberman-Warner, 10 Democrats, 9 of whom voted for cloture, very quietly sent a letter stating that they could not vote for Lieberman-Warner "in its current form." So subtract 9, and you get 39 votes. That's a far cry from 60.
Capito & Rogers: EPA Threatens Future of Mining Industry
Monday May 17, 2010
In the midst of severe economic uncertainty, the Environmental Protection Agency is playing political games with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of hardworking Americans as a result of its June pronouncement of so-called enhanced surface mining permit reviews. Tomorrow, the minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will release a report that details the dramatic realities of this incomprehensible scheme that amounts to nothing short of a total war on coal, energy production and small businesses in Appalachia and beyond.
While the EPA conducts an unnecessary re-examination of the mining permitting process under the guise of environmental stewardship, the troubling reality is that the EPA's unsolicited policy changes are aimed solely at the coal industry and more specifically, Appalachian coal. Unilaterally implementing some of the most sweeping regulatory changes in recent history, the EPA is supplanting well-established, Congressionally justified water quality programs in six Appalachian states and running roughshod over commonly agreed upon principles and practices.
The EPW Committee's soon-to-be-released report reveals a troubling truth: In the past year, the EPA has indefinitely delayed hundreds of standard surface, underground and refuse mining permits. In some instances, the EPA has retroactively revoked federally approved permits without adequate justification and simply thrown these permits and the jobs that come with them into the bureaucratic abyss. Given that a mere 10 percent of these permits actually apply to mountaintop mining, these new bureaucratic hurdles represent a thinly veiled attempt by the EPA to regulate coal mining out of existence across Appalachia. This is shameful.
The Obama administration's decision to blockade these 190 mining permits will make a grim unemployment picture much worse. In Kentucky and West Virginia, for example, where the unemployment rate continues to hover above 10 percent, coal mining directly accounts for 56,000 high-paying jobs. Throughout the Appalachian region, these mining jobs support families that might otherwise struggle to put food on the table. Even worse, the EPW Committee's study states that unless the EPA frees up permits soon, 81 small businesses will face bankruptcy and a quarter of Appalachian coal mining jobs could be lost.
This is indeed a grim reality, but it would be naive to believe that only mining jobs are at stake. The transportation, equipment manufacturing and utility sectors are all inherently tied to the mining industry and will suffer disproportionately if the coal industry is dismantled. Jobs funded by taxes levied on coal will also be affected, including teachers, police officers and firefighters. While the EPA has set its sights specifically on Appalachian coal, the people of Appalachia will suffer regardless of whether they work in the coal industry.
While the EPA conducts an unnecessary re-examination of the mining permitting process under the guise of environmental stewardship, the troubling reality is that the EPA's unsolicited policy changes are aimed solely at the coal industry and more specifically, Appalachian coal. Unilaterally implementing some of the most sweeping regulatory changes in recent history, the EPA is supplanting well-established, Congressionally justified water quality programs in six Appalachian states and running roughshod over commonly agreed upon principles and practices.
The EPW Committee's soon-to-be-released report reveals a troubling truth: In the past year, the EPA has indefinitely delayed hundreds of standard surface, underground and refuse mining permits. In some instances, the EPA has retroactively revoked federally approved permits without adequate justification and simply thrown these permits and the jobs that come with them into the bureaucratic abyss. Given that a mere 10 percent of these permits actually apply to mountaintop mining, these new bureaucratic hurdles represent a thinly veiled attempt by the EPA to regulate coal mining out of existence across Appalachia. This is shameful.
The Obama administration's decision to blockade these 190 mining permits will make a grim unemployment picture much worse. In Kentucky and West Virginia, for example, where the unemployment rate continues to hover above 10 percent, coal mining directly accounts for 56,000 high-paying jobs. Throughout the Appalachian region, these mining jobs support families that might otherwise struggle to put food on the table. Even worse, the EPW Committee's study states that unless the EPA frees up permits soon, 81 small businesses will face bankruptcy and a quarter of Appalachian coal mining jobs could be lost.
This is indeed a grim reality, but it would be naive to believe that only mining jobs are at stake. The transportation, equipment manufacturing and utility sectors are all inherently tied to the mining industry and will suffer disproportionately if the coal industry is dismantled. Jobs funded by taxes levied on coal will also be affected, including teachers, police officers and firefighters. While the EPA has set its sights specifically on Appalachian coal, the people of Appalachia will suffer regardless of whether they work in the coal industry.
