In The News
Opening Statement: Oversight Hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Wednesday April 25, 2007
I think Senators’ Carper and Voinovich would both agree with me that every bureaucracy needs oversight and the NRC has certainly improved immensely over the last 10 years. I would have to say that the NRC has developed into a model agency, and I was pleased to hear that the NRC has been ranked as the best agency to work for in the Federal government.
I must say that in order for the agency to succeed, you must have good leadership and I believe we have had some outstanding Commissioners and Chairmen over the last decade. I want to publicly thank Commissioner Merrifield for his service and dedication, this is probably your last hearing before this Committee, at least as a Commissioner, and you have done an outstanding job.
EPW FACT OF THE DAY: Clinton EPA Administrator’s Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda
Tuesday April 24, 2007
During today’s Senate Environment and Public Works hearing, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner demanded the current agency immediately regulate greenhouse gases now that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the agency may do so under the Clean Air Act. Browner asserted that the Bush Administration should be able to take action within six months or less to regulate C02.
FACT: The reality however, as explained by EPA’s former general counsel Ann Klee, is that there is a complex set of decisions that need to be made. This is an extremely complex issue, where dozens of provisions of the Clean Air Act need to be evaluated.
While Browner denies this complexity now -- she declared that this is a "moral" issue in which the current EPA must and can act quickly -- her own words and actions betray her.
Clinton EPA Administrator’s Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda
Tuesday April 24, 2007
During today’s Senate Environment and Public Works hearing, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner demanded the current agency immediately regulate greenhouse gases now that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the agency may do so under the Clean Air Act. Browner asserted that the Bush Administration should be able to take action within six months or less to regulate C02.
FACT: The reality however, as explained by EPA’s former general counsel Ann Klee, is that there is a complex set of decisions that need to be made. This is an extremely complex issue, where dozens of provisions of the Clean Air Act need to be evaluated.
While Browner denies this complexity now -- she declared that this is a "moral" issue in which the current EPA must and can act quickly -- her own words and actions betray her.
In 1997, in a speech at Florida State University, Browner said that "The science of this phenomenon is compelling…Do we know everything there is to know about global climate change? No. Do we know exactly what will happen in the decades ahead? Of course not. But we have enough to go on – based on years of rigorous scientific analysis – to know that we must begin dealing with this problem. And we should act sooner, rather than later…"
In 1998, before a House Appropriations Subcommittee, Browner was asked if she thought the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide. Browner replied "I think we are granted broad authority under the Clean Air Act to." Additionally, she obtained a legal memo from her General Counsel supporting her position.
When asked by Senator Inhofe today why she did not act – if she believed the science justified action and she had the authority to act – Browner replied, "We were working on it and if we had been given another four years, I am sure we would have done it."
Apparently Browner believes that what would have taken her 12 years to accomplish should only take the current EPA six months.
# # #
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...Federal Wetlands Protection Programs are Working (Sen. Inhofe, The Hill, 4/24/07)
Tuesday April 24, 2007
Last Congress, I introduced the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act, which authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service’s primary program for delivering habitat improvement projects on private land through voluntary agreements with private landowners. Much of the habitat protected through the Partners program is wetlands. As I noted when the Committee on Environment and Public Works passed my legislation, it is a true partnership between landowners and the government. From 1987 to 2006, Partners restored more than 800,000 acres of wetlands and plans to restore or enhance more than 45,000 acres in 2007.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...Federal Wetlands Protection Programs are Working (Sen. Inhofe, The Hill, 4/24/07)
Tuesday April 24, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT…
The Hill
Federal Wetlands Protection Programs are Working
By Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
April 24, 2007
Three years ago on Earth Day, 2004, President Bush outlined a new national goal for increasing the amount and quality of wetlands. The federal government’s numerous voluntary and cooperative programs that work with the landowner to preserve wetlands are an integral part of meeting the president’s goal.
Last Congress, I introduced the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act, which authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service’s primary program for delivering habitat improvement projects on private land through voluntary agreements with private landowners. Much of the habitat protected through the Partners program is wetlands. As I noted when the Committee on Environment and Public Works passed my legislation, it is a true partnership between landowners and the government. From 1987 to 2006, Partners restored more than 800,000 acres of wetlands and plans to restore or enhance more than 45,000 acres in 2007.
I also sponsored the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act (NAWCA) — P.L. 109-322. NAWCA leverages federal dollars with state and private dollars to conserve wetlands as habitat for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife. NAWCA projects involve multiple partners from all levels of government and nongovernmental and private organizations. From 1990 to 2006 the program leveraged $1.5 billion in matching funds and $809 million in non-matching funds to restore and protect millions of acres of wetlands. According to the Council of Environmental Quality’s report "Conserving America’s Wetlands 2006: Two Years of Progress Implementing the President’s Goal," in 2007, NAWCA is expected to improve 154,000 acres of wetlands and protect an additional 579,000 acres of wetlands.
While these programs hold the rights of the property owner sacred and work with landowners to protect our environment, the 404 permitting program is a federal regulatory program with the ability to impose often burdensome requirements that may devalue an individual’s property. Projects seeking Section 404 permits have significant economic development impacts for local communities that are best suited to determine local growth patterns. Data from the Corps indicates that in fiscal year 2006, permittees requested to impact 17,505 acres of wetlands. Ultimately, 3,618 acres were avoided and 13,887 acres were permitted. The Corps required permittees to create, preserve, enhance or restore more than 38,000 acres of wetlands.
Stakeholders have long expressed frustration with the permitting process, including the length of time it takes to process Section 404 permits. A study by David L. Sunding and David Zilberman found that it took an average of 405 days to process an individual permit and 788 days from the time the permittee began preparing the application. According to the Corps, the average processing time is at most 230 days. This number however does not reflect the time between submission of the application and the Corps’s determination that the application is complete.
One of the main concerns with the regulatory process is the lack of a clear standard for determining when a permit is required. In this regard, it is imperative that the Corps and EPA clarify the definition of "waters of the United States." The federal government owes it to the regulated community to have a clear, concise and understandable definition of "waters of the United States." When dealing with federal regulatory authority it is critical that federal law is consistent, easily understood and within the limits of the Constitution, in this case meaning the Commerce Clause.
Our government is "for the people," not in spite of the people. Individual property owners have the right to determine how to use their property. We should not be fashioning federal policy to take away the value of someone’s property. The Constitution provides them protection from just such an action. Every homeowner in America is a private property owner. Most of them would not react well to the federal government telling them to control rainwater running down their driveways from washing their cars or watering their lawns. That is not completely out of the realm of possibility, however, if the scope of the Clean Water Act is the outer limits of Congress’s constitutional authority.
Regulatory clarification of the federal definition coupled with more emphasis on programs that seek to cooperate with the nation’s landowners will go far in protecting and preserving wetlands, providing for locally driven development and preservation of private property rights. No one wants to endanger wetlands or our nation’s water supply. Everyone should want federal programs that work with the people, just as the Founders intended.
Inhofe is ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...INHOFE DARES HOLLYWOOD TO TAKE WARMING PLEDGE (Eric Preiffer, Washington Times, April 24, 2007)
Tuesday April 24, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT…
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
INHOFE DARES HOLLYWOOD TO TAKE WARMING PLEDGE
By Eric Pfeiffer
April 24, 2007
A leading skeptic of global-warming science is challenging celebrity activists such as Al Gore and Sheryl Crow to lower their "carbon footprint" to the same level as the average American by Earth Day in April 2008.
"I simply believe that former Vice President Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who demand we change the way we live to avert this over-hyped 'crisis' not only talk the talk, but walk the walk," said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.
"How hard is it for these elitists to become as frugal in their energy consumption as the average American? I think the American public has a right to know they are being had."
A so-called "Gore Pledge" was introduced last month when the former vice president appeared before a Senate committee to discuss his views on climate change. Mr. Inhofe asked Mr. Gore to sign the pledge to reduce his use of products that produce greenhouse gases, but he declined, instead citing alternative carbon trade-offs.
Mr. Gore says he pays a self-imposed "carbon tax" to offset the environmental impact of his large home and global travels.
Mr. Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, has long been an adversary of proponents for environmental legislation. Several of his previous comments, including referring to global warming as a "hoax" while chairman of the Senate committee in the last Congress, angered environmental activists.
Calls to the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, were not returned.
Mr. Inhofe, along with fellow Republican senators, has threatened to filibuster climate change legislation introduced by Mrs. Boxer.
Miss Crow has made headlines in recent weeks by traveling in a bio-diesel fueled bus during her recent concert tour in support of raising awareness about global climate change. During Saturday's annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner, Miss Crow and Laurie David, wife of "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David, had a heated exchange with White House adviser Karl Rove about the issue.
"What science do they have? They cannot tolerate dissent," Inhofe spokesman Marc Morano said of the exchange during an appearance on the Fox News Channel yesterday.
Yesterday, the Web site thesmokinggun.com revealed that Miss Crow's tour caravan includes three tractor-trailer rigs, four buses and six cars.
In addition, Miss Crow was in the news yesterday for advocating limits on the use of toilet paper as a way of wiping out global warming.
"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting," Miss Crow wrote on her blog. "Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating."
In his letter, Mr. Inhofe also singled out other celebrity activists, including John Travolta, Leonardo DiCaprio and Madonna.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...INHOFE DARES HOLLYWOOD TO TAKE WARMING PLEDGE (Eric Preiffer, Washington Times, April 24, 2007)
Tuesday April 24, 2007
"I simply believe that former Vice President Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who demand we change the way we live to avert this over-hyped 'crisis' not only talk the talk, but walk the walk," said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.
"How hard is it for these elitists to become as frugal in their energy consumption as the average American? I think the American public has a right to know they are being had."
A so-called "Gore Pledge" was introduced last month when the former vice president appeared before a Senate committee to discuss his views on climate change. Mr. Inhofe asked Mr. Gore to sign the pledge to reduce his use of products that produce greenhouse gases, but he declined, instead citing alternative carbon trade-offs.
Mr. Gore says he pays a self-imposed "carbon tax" to offset the environmental impact of his large home and global travels.
INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT: Hearing on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Massachusetts V. EPA
Tuesday April 24, 2007
Through this decision, the Court’s liberal justices have not only chosen to provide the executive branch with authority it clearly was not granted, but to create a regulatory quagmire in which EPA is granted the authority to regulate carbon dioxide through a statute which clearly was not intended to deal with it. Ironically, when the Clean Air Act was passed in the 1970s, the doomsayers in society were not saying the world was going to turn into a ball of fire, but into a ball of ice.