Skip to content

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

ICYMI: Inhofe Announces Plans to CRA Major Regulations, Questions EPA Nominee on Failure to Obey Law

ICYMI: Inhofe Announces Plans to CRA Major Regulations, Questions EPA Nominee on Failure to Obey Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today questioned Janet McCabe, nominee to be the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the agency's systematic distortion of the cost of its regulations. He also announced his plan to invoke the Congressional Review Act (CRA) on any major EPA regulation that comes out under the Obama Administration. [READ HERE: Powerline Blog: Can the Congressional Review Act Bring the Obama Administration to its Knees?]

In his opening statement, Inhofe stated: "The impacts we're beginning to see are extremely negative, but the Administration and the EPA do not seem to care. Electricity affordability and reliability clearly have no part in the EPA's thought process. And this is why I made this commitment yesterday that I am going to have a Congressional Review Act (CRA); I'm going to use that on every one of these regulations…The people who are elected need to be participating in the process [of regulating]." [WATCH HERE: Video of Inhofe's Opening Statement]

Inhofe then asked McCabe a series of questions, one specifically requesting the nominee to state if she would support Inhofe's S.2161 legislation introduced on March 26 with 29 cosponsors. The legislation would prohibit the EPA from finalizing any new major regulation until the agency analyzes the whole economic impact of its current air regulations as instructed under Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA currently reports the economic impact of the regulated entity; but fails to report the impact the regulation will have on the whole economy as required by law since 1977. [READ HERE: Daily Caller: Inhofe Seeks to force the EPA to report the costs of its rules]

When Inhofe continued to press McCabe for her position on S.2161, McCabe did not respond and Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) gaveled to close Inhofe's time of questioning. [WATCH HERE: Q&A between Inhofe and McCabe]

On Monday night, Inhofe spoke with nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin about the EPA’s unchecked regulations and Inhofe's plans to put the brakes on the Obama Administration through the CRA process. Inhofe explained that these regulations being passed are “killing America” and stated that he will “file a CRA on each of them."

Click here to listen to the interview.  

 ml

###

 

Thursday, April 3, 2014

ICYMI: Inhofe talks with MSNBC’s Morning Joe

ICYMI: Inhofe talks with MSNBC’s Morning Joe about Fort Hood Tragedy and upcoming Moore tornado anniversary

“A lot more needs to be done.” – Sen. Jim Inhofe on the need to address PTSD and mental health in the military

 Morning Joe

Click here to watch the video

During the interview, Sen. Inhofe stressed the importance of addressing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and depression in the military. The following are initiatives driven or supported by Inhofe to help servicemembers who are suffering from a range of mental health issues:

  • National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2009: Inhofe worked on a provision that established a Traumatic Injury Center of Excellence. He and the entire committee strongly supported including in the NDAA the Wounded Warriors Act, which guarantees mental health evaluations for combat veterans within 30 days of their request.
  • July 22, 2010: Inhofe requested and held a hearing with the Vice Chiefs of Staff of all the Services on progress being made to prevent military suicides, detection and care of TBI and PTSD, and connection between excessive medicating and the increase in the number of suicides and other psychological problems.
  • NDAA of 2012: Inhofe introduced an amendment to the NDAA that would require a report on eliminating gaps and redundancies between the over 200 programs within the Department of Defense (DOD) that address psychological health and TBI. The amendment was not accepted.
  • NDAA of 2013: Inhofe worked with the committee to include a provision that requires the DOD to submit a plan to streamline over 200 TBI programs sponsored or funded by DOD. This provision enables DOD to identify programs that are working and focus funding to improve overall care.
  • NDAA of 2014: Inhofe worked to include a provision that directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a joint report to ensure adequate resources to meet the needs of our military members and their families. He also pushed for inclusion of additional treatments for TBI and increasing access to mental health counselors.

Inhofe added that military members should be able to carry properly registered firearms on base. Inhofe said, “I am thinking about what happened yesterday and this individual was finally stopped by a security woman who was armed. Now these guys over there are at the mercy of someone who is out on a rampage that we saw yesterday because they know — the perpetrators of these crimes know that they’re not armed out there.”

When news broke of yesterday’s Fort Hood shooting, Inhofe and Army Sec. John McHugh were attending a Lawton Chamber event in the U.S. Senate where both gentlemen were briefed on the tragedy.

Inhofe later released a statement on his Facebook page that read, “My thoughts and prayers are with the Army community and the men and women at Ft. Hood. Our men and women in uniform who risk their lives overseas in defense of our nation should never have to face such senseless violence here at home.”


###

Thursday, March 13, 2014

ICYMI: Gen. Kelly tells Inhofe that military lacks resources to stop 75% of drug trafficking into U.S.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), today at a committee hearing questioned SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. John Kelly on his command's inability to carry out its mission of interdicting vessels that are illegally transporting narcotics and possibly other dangers into the United States as a result of budget constraints.

boss sasc

Click here to watch the video

INHOFE: "if you look at the seizures -- and there's a direct relationship with the assets that are out there. And this is what really bothers me, because I think you -- you have made a statement -- I think it was in our office to some of our staff that there is 75 percent of the cocaine trafficking heading toward the United States -- that you can see it, but you can't interdict it. Is that accurate?"

KELLY: “…I watch them go by"

INHOFE: “And if you had the assets you could interdict them?"

KELLY: "I could interdict them."

INHOFE: "So we have a lot of this stuff coming into the United States that would not otherwise being coming in?”

KELLY: "That’s correct.”

[Kelly then confirmed to Inhofe that he currently has one Navy vessel and two coast guard vessels under his command that allow him to interdict narcotics, and another year of sequestration would eliminate those assets.]

INHOFE: “Is it likely you wouldn't even have the one, in the event that we have to go through sequestration?"

KELLY: "I would definitely not have one if I didn't -- if we were going through sequestration."

During the hearing, Gen. Kelly, in a dialogue with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), also informed the committee that only about 5 percent of SOUTHCOM's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) requirements are being met. Also in response to a question from Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Gen. Kelly said SOUTHCOM would need "16 vessels of some kind" in order to meet its requirements. 

 ###

Thursday, March 13, 2014

ICYMI: Inhofe on FOX & Friends

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), today appeared on FOX News' FOX & Friends to discuss the President's misguided priorities. In a segment titled "Cut This, Not That," Inhofe outlined three of the Obama Administration's climate change spending initiatives and compared that cost to what the Administration could be doing to better support our national security:

cut this not that

[click here for the video]


The following are the three examples Inhofe provided:


$270 million failed climate satellite = training for our Special Ops

CUT THIS: In 2009, the Obama Administration spent roughly $270 million on a climate satellite that was intended to map Earth's CO2 levels and study how humans are contributing to greenhouse gases. This satellite was destroyed during a failed rocket launch. [READ HERE: NBC News: "NASA's global warming satellite falls to Earth"]

NOT THAT: Inhofe noted that for roughly the same amount, we could avoid the budget short fall this year to best train and equip our Special Operations Forces, which include our Navy SEALS. 

 

$535 million failed loan to Solyndra = maintaining 7 AWACS

CUT THIS: In 2009, Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee under the Obama Administration, but in 2011 Solyndra filed bankruptcy leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. 

NOT THAT: Inhofe noted that for roughly the same amount, the United States could avoid retiring 7 of its 31 AWACS that the Air Force announced were on the chopping block this year due to budget cuts. Inhofe pointed out that AWACS is a fleet essential in detecting enemy aircraft. For example, NATO is using AWACS to assist Ukraine with Russia's invasion of Crimea. [READ HERE: The Oklahoman: "Key Oklahoma lawmakers oppose AWACS cuts"]

 

$757 million for the Global Climate Change Initiative = 50 black hawks for our reserve units

CUT THIS: This year, the President has allotted $757 million to the Global Climate Change Initiative that helps to build green power plants abroad. 

NOT THAT: Inhofe noted that this money could be best used to provide 50 of the 111 black hawks that our National Guard and reserve units need under the Army Aviation Restructure initiative. 

 

###

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

ICYMI: Inhofe's FIVE Rebuttals to the #Up4Climate Talk-a-thon

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Tuesday delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate rebutting five main claims Democrat Senators made during their #Up4Climate talk-a-thon:

Inhofe Up4Climate

Click here to watch the video

REBUTTAL ONE: GOP IS SMEARED IN OIL MONEY
INHOFE: "My good friend from California, this is a quote, and we took it down, she said 'When 97% to 98% of the scientists say something is real, they don't have anything pressing them to say that other than the truth. They don't have any other agenda. They don't work for the oil companies. And I will tell you, as chairman of the Environment Committee, every time the Republicans choose a so-called expert on climate, we have tracked them to special interest funding, those 3%. They know where their bread is buttered.’
 
“That's kind of an interesting and a timely statement to make because what they're not telling you, and I'm talking about the senator from California and the other democrats, is that the hedge fund billionaire and climate activist Tom Steyer, plans to spend a hundred million dollars through his NextGen PAC. That's his political action committee and he's made the statement that he is going to be spending $100 million in the midterm elections of 2014 and is going to be looking very carefully to make sure that all the democrats go along with his activist agenda.”
 
[Read: Washington Post - "What the Senate's all-nighter on climate change is really about" by Ed O'Keefe]
 
REBUTTAL TWO: EXTREME WEATHER AS PROOF OF CLIMATE CHANGE
INHOFE: “Last night many of my colleagues pointed to weather as the reason for man-made climate change yet they failed to quote meteorologists in their speeches. Let me read to you what meteorologists are saying about climate change:

  • "A recent study by George Mason University reported that 63% of the weathercasters believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of natural variation and not human activities. Now, that's a significant 2-1 majority.
  • "Another study by the American meteorological society last year found their members, nearly half of their members, nearly half did not believe in manmade global warming. Further, the survey found that scientists who professed liberal political values were more likely to proclaim manmade climate change than the rest of their colleagues." [Read: Daily Caller – “Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming” by Michael Bastasch]
  • “Dr. Martin Hertzberg. He's a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD In physical chemistry also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008. And this is a quote from this Dr. Martin Hertzberg. ‘As a scientist and lifelong liberal democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap trap about human caused global warming to be a disservice to science,' Hertzberg wrote and still quoting, he said, ‘The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data. All they have are half-baked computer models...’
  • “CNN, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, had another of its meteorologist dissent from global warming fears. Chad Myers, meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American Meteorological Society. Spoke out against anthropogenic climate change on CNN in December. He said, ‘You know to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant.’”

“But since they're talking about the weather, here are a few facts that aren't mentioned on droughts and hurricanes…:

  • “According to NOAA, the hurricanes have been in decline in the United States since the beginning of records in the 19th century. The worst decade for a major category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes was in the 1940's.
  • “Severe droughts in 1934 covered 80% of the country. While the current one, the one a year and a half ago, was 25% of the country.”

REBUTTAL THREE: THE ICECAPS ARE MELTING
INHOFE: “My colleague, Senator Feinstein from California, pointed to melting ice caps as proof of climate change. Yet reports on what's NOT melting show a different story:

  • "This past December, a research expedition of climate scientists got stuck in deep ice in the Antarctic… That was a bunch of people that were going up there to try to solidify their case on global warming and they were stuck in the ice for weeks on end. And it took a couple of weeks and a couple more icebreakers getting stuck before the research vessel was finally freed. [Read: Fox News – “'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting” by Paul Tilsley]
  • "A paper published in October 'Journal of Climate' examines the trend of sea ice extent along the east Antarctic coast from 2000-2008 and finds a significant increase averaging 1.43 -- that's 1.5% a year -- of increased ice in the Antarctic.”
  • "In January 2010, a TIME magazine article titled 'The Himalayan melting: How a climate panel got it wrong,' said 'Glacier-gate' is a 'black eye for the IPCC and the climate science community as a whole.'
  • "In December of 2008, Al Gore said, 'The entire north polar ice cap will disappear in five years.' Well it's now five years and one month past the deadline of December of 2013 and the arctic ice is actually doing pretty well. Just last year, BBC reported that the arctic ice cap coverage is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012. So contrary to what Al gore predicted, that it would be gone by now, that it did not disappear… Richard Lindzen - one of the foremost authorities, scientific authorities, on climate anywhere in the world -talking about Gore said, ‘To treat all changes as something to fear is bad enough. To do it in order to exploit that fear is much worse.’”

REBUTTAL FOUR: THE IPCC IS THE GOLD STANDARD ON CLIMATE SCIENCE
INHOFE: “They talked about the IPCC as the gold standard of climate science. Senator Whitehouse defended the credibility of the IPCC despite climate-gate, saying: ‘So after all that, after six published reviews whose results confirmed that there was nothing wrong with the science as a result of these e-mails…For people to come to the floor and to suggest that the e-mail chains revealed some flaw in the data or some flaw in the science, it's just flat untrue. Simple as that. It's just not true.’
 
“But we know this is not the case. The e-mails are very clear that the scientists were manipulating the data to generate a result that they wanted. And this is what some of the e-mails disclosed:

  • "One leaked e-mails from 1999 -- keep in mind, these are the guys giving the science to the IPCC: ‘I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding the real temps to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.' In other words, they were falsifying the increase in the temperatures. And what he's saying is that he changed the numbers to show that warming has -- is happening when it really hasn't happened.
  • "And another e-mail that was revealed in 2009: ‘The fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. Our observing systems is just inadequate.’

“Despite this, IPCC has continued to say that global warming is continuing to happen. The media outcry from these e-mail leaks was surprising because you didn't hear as much about it here in the United States as you did in the U.K. and other places. It seemed to be the mainstream press organizations who have been partners with the global warming activists, alarmists began to question their competence in the whole premise. Here are some quotes:

  • “Christopher Booker, the U.K. Telegraph, said it is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.
  • “Clive Crook, that's the Financial Times, said that the ‘closed mindedness of these supposed men of science is surprising even to me; the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.’
  • “Newsweek said once celebrated climate researchers feel like ‘used car salesmen.’
  • “George Monboit [with the Guardian] said, ‘It is no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The e-mails extracted by a hacker from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I'm dismayed and I deeply am shaken by them. I was too trusting of some of those who provided evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated more closely.’”

REBUTTAL FIVE: THE COST OF NOT TAKING ACTION IS TOO GREAT
INHOFE: “What I'm about to say is the most important thing because many years ago - this would have been back about 2002 - when almost everyone believed that the world is coming to an end, there's global warming, it's all causing it, they all talked about how this must be true. The range is always between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and this is based off of a regulatory threshold of 25,000 tons. [Read: Wall Street Journal: A Carbon Reckoning]
 
“Doing it by regulation what they cannot do by legislation.” [Summarized below is a list of regulatory costs that Senator Inhofe spoke about in his floor speech]:

  • Ozone Regulation: 77 Oklahoma counties out attainment; Projected 7million job loss
  • Utility MACT regulation: Projected $100 billion cost to the economy; 1.65 million job loss
  • Boiler MACT regulation: Projected $63 billion cost to the economy;800,000 job loss
  • BLM fracking regulations: $100,000 cost per well and duplicative of effective state regulations
  • The cumulative impact of EPA’s small regulations, which does not include greenhouse gases or ozone, as studied by the National Association of Manufacturers, cost the economy $630 billion annually and 9 million jobs.

 
###
 

Search

Filter