Monday, October 31, 2011
+ SHREDDING KATHLEEN SEBELIUS +
SHREDDING KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
By Michelle Malkin • October 28, 2011
Culture of Corruption…Mwah!
For the past four years, I’ve spotlighted the fight to bring Planned Parenthood’s predators to justice in Kansas. In October 2007, then-AG Phill Kline filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the PP racket, with counts ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions. In February of this year, I noted the prolonged witch hunt against Kline — which blew up in the radical abortion lobby’s face. Today’s syndicated column scrutinizes the overseer role Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has played throughout the PP/Kansas health bureaucracy’s stonewalling of the truth. See Life News and Planned Parenthood Corruption for background and documents.
***
Shredding Kathleen Sebelius
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011
If a private health insurer had engaged in the kind of criminal obstruction that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been tied to in her home state of Kansas, it would be a federal case. Instead, it’s a non-story in the Washington press. Nothing to see here. Move along.
On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials “shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces.” World Magazine reported: “The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records.”
The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents — which they sheepishly admitted had “certain idiosyncrasies” — was “routine.” Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.
As governor of Kansas, Sebelius fought transparency motions in the proceedings tooth and nail for years. Prosecutors allege a long-running heinous cover-up to manufacture false records of patients who had late-term abortions — and to whitewash Planned Parenthood’s systemic failures to report child rape.
Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline’s investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller’s bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.
Where are Joe Biden to decry actual rape atrocities and Nancy Pelosi to decry dire hazards to women’s health when we need them?
A Kansas district judge found probable cause of criminality in the abortion providers’ records; another district judge found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts. Sebelius’ response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller’s, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline’s subpoenas and appeals.
Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state’s disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.
Where there’s obstructionist smoke, there’s corruption fire. Under Sebelius’ watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had “applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators,” according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.
Entirely fitting, of course. The war on whistleblowers and inspectors general has been a hallmark of the current White House. And the radically pro-abortion rights Sebelius has ruled ruthlessly from her Beltway perch: policing citizen critics of Obamacare through a taxpayer-funded Internet snitch brigade; threatening private companies and insurers who have increased rates to cope with Obamacare coverage mandates; lashing out at newspapers who dare report on the costly consequences of the federal law.
As she bullies private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands, Sebelius has yet to be held accountable for overseeing state government agencies that conspired to hide the deadly truth about the Big Government/Big Abortion alliance from taxpayers.
Like her boss in Washington, Sebelius’ political playbook has a single page: Destroy the messenger.
HTTP://WWW.MICHELLEMALKIN.COM
By Michelle Malkin • October 28, 2011
Culture of Corruption…Mwah!
For the past four years, I’ve spotlighted the fight to bring Planned Parenthood’s predators to justice in Kansas. In October 2007, then-AG Phill Kline filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the PP racket, with counts ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions. In February of this year, I noted the prolonged witch hunt against Kline — which blew up in the radical abortion lobby’s face. Today’s syndicated column scrutinizes the overseer role Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has played throughout the PP/Kansas health bureaucracy’s stonewalling of the truth. See Life News and Planned Parenthood Corruption for background and documents.
***
Shredding Kathleen Sebelius
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011
If a private health insurer had engaged in the kind of criminal obstruction that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been tied to in her home state of Kansas, it would be a federal case. Instead, it’s a non-story in the Washington press. Nothing to see here. Move along.
On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials “shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces.” World Magazine reported: “The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records.”
The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents — which they sheepishly admitted had “certain idiosyncrasies” — was “routine.” Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.
As governor of Kansas, Sebelius fought transparency motions in the proceedings tooth and nail for years. Prosecutors allege a long-running heinous cover-up to manufacture false records of patients who had late-term abortions — and to whitewash Planned Parenthood’s systemic failures to report child rape.
Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline’s investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller’s bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.
Where are Joe Biden to decry actual rape atrocities and Nancy Pelosi to decry dire hazards to women’s health when we need them?
A Kansas district judge found probable cause of criminality in the abortion providers’ records; another district judge found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts. Sebelius’ response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller’s, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline’s subpoenas and appeals.
Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state’s disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.
Where there’s obstructionist smoke, there’s corruption fire. Under Sebelius’ watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had “applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators,” according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.
Entirely fitting, of course. The war on whistleblowers and inspectors general has been a hallmark of the current White House. And the radically pro-abortion rights Sebelius has ruled ruthlessly from her Beltway perch: policing citizen critics of Obamacare through a taxpayer-funded Internet snitch brigade; threatening private companies and insurers who have increased rates to cope with Obamacare coverage mandates; lashing out at newspapers who dare report on the costly consequences of the federal law.
As she bullies private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands, Sebelius has yet to be held accountable for overseeing state government agencies that conspired to hide the deadly truth about the Big Government/Big Abortion alliance from taxpayers.
Like her boss in Washington, Sebelius’ political playbook has a single page: Destroy the messenger.
HTTP://WWW.MICHELLEMALKIN.COM
Friday, October 28, 2011
U.S. GENERAL: CUTS RISK MARINES' WAR MISSIONS - WARNS U.S. CONGRESS AGAINST REDUCTIONS
U.S. GENERAL: CUTS RISK MARINES' WAR MISSIONS - WARNS U.S. CONGRESS AGAINST REDUCTIONS
-
The Washington Times
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A top Marine Corps general told Congress on Thursday that cutting the Corps to 150,000 Marines, as some analysts project, would mean it could not fulfill its mission during a major war, or respond adequately to crises and humanitarian disasters around the world.
“A hundred and fifty thousand would put us below the level that’s necessary to support a single contingency,” said Gen. Joseph Dunford, who as assistant commandant is the nation’s No. 2 Marine.
Furthermore, the Marines, known as America’s 911 response force, would be limited in carrying out an array of special missions.
“We will not be there to deter our potential adversaries,” he told the House Armed Services subcommittee on readiness. “We won’t be there to assure our potential friends or to assure our allies. And we certainly won’t be there to contain small crises before they become major conflagrations.”
The Pentagon is searching for $465 billion in cuts over 10 years as man dated by a Congress-White House budget deal. If a congressional supercommittee can’t agree on a larger debt-reduction road map, the Pentagon would face another $450 billion slash, a move that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said will lead to a “hollow” military.
Gen. Dunford made his stark warning about diminishing Marine Corps capabilities amid news reports that the supercommittee is not close to an agreement as the Nov. 23 deadline approaches.
A committee Republican staff memo says the Marine Corps stands at 202,000 troops and is slated to shrink to 173,000 under current planning. But if the supercommittee fails to reach an agreement, the Corps would be forced to cut another 28,000 Marines to 145,000, the memo said.
The Republican-led subcommittee has been conducting a series of hearings on the global impact of a reduced U.S. military. Mr. Panetta told the full committee this month that sharp cuts will force him to limit presence in some parts of the world, including Africa.
Traveling in Asia on Thursday, Mr. Panetta told reporters that the next five-year budget submitted to Congress in February will contain $260 billion in cuts, according to Reuters.
“I think it’s important to note that we’ve never done this before,” testified Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Army vice chief of staff, referring to Afghanistan and Iraq. “We’ve never fought for 10 years. We’ve never fought with an entirely volunteer force. That force is amazingly resilient, but at the same time, it is strained. Its equipment is strained, soldiers are strained, families are strained.”
Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Air Force vice chief, testified that his service is operating fewer aircraft today than during the 1991 Desert Storm air war.
“We’re flying the oldest fleet that the Air Force has ever flown, and we do need to desperately get to recapitalization during this age of fiscal austerity,” he said.
The Air Force is banking on the F-35 Lightning strike fighter to replace aging F-16s. But cost overruns may force the Pentagon to scale back plans for buying the aircraft.
Gen. Chiarelli, whose Army may lose as many as eight combat brigade teams, raised the specter of repeating the mistakes of post-World War II and post-Vietnam. Both times, the military sank into a posture of diminished preparedness for fighting wars.
“I think that it’s very important to look at the history of how we’ve done,” the four-star Army general said. “We’re repeating a cycle here that is something that has happened many, many times in our history.”
Mr. Panetta told sailors aboard the command ship USS Blue Ridge in Yokosuka, Japan, on Wednesday that he is committed to protecting the military from declining because of budget constraints.
“I commit to you, and I’ve been in touch with our service chiefs and work with them every day, all of us are committed to maintaining the best military in the world. And we will do that,” he said.
Mr. Panetta said he plans to “protect” the military from drastic cuts and make sure it does not become a hollow force.
“We’re going to make sure we never hollow out the force,” he said. “That’s a mistake that’s been made in the past; we’re not going to make that mistake now.”
Subcommittee Chairman J. Randy Forbes, Virginia Republican, said the budget cuts could prove “devastating to the military.”
“I remain concerned that we may have already gone too far,” he said. “Over the last 20 months, the department has reduced its 10-year budget authority by $754 billion from the levels submitted with the president’s budget for fiscal year 2011.
“It has already canceled many of its most advanced systems like the CG(X) next-generation cruiser program, the F-22, the Army’s future combat systems, and the transformational satellite program … among others.”
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN ROS-LEHTINEN DISCUSSES PROPOSAL TO REFORM THE UNITED NATIONS!
HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN ROS-LEHTINEN DISCUSSES PROPOSAL TO REFORM THE UNITED NATIONS!
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MEEHAN'S OPENING STATEMENT ON IRANIAN TERROR OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MEEHAN'S OPENING STATEMENT ON IRANIAN TERROR OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
MORNING BELL: SHOULD AMERICA CARRY THE U.N.?
MORNING BELL: SHOULD AMERICA CARRY THE U.N.?
Ericka Andersen
October 28, 2011 at 9:46 am
The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?
The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control. If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities. Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?
In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks of participation in these bodies:
Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.
Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:
If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.
International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.
America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.
That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.
In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.
Posted in American Leadership
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/28/morning-bell-should-america-carry-the-u-n/
Ericka Andersen
October 28, 2011 at 9:46 am
The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?
The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control. If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities. Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?
In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks of participation in these bodies:
Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.
Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:
If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.
International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.
America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.
That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.
In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.
Posted in American Leadership
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/28/morning-bell-should-america-carry-the-u-n/
SESSION-RYAN: 900 DAYS SINCE U.S. SENATE DEMOCRATS OFFERED BUDGET PLAN, A "NATIONAL DISGRACE"!
SESSIONS-RYAN: 900 DAYS SINCE U.S. SENATE DEMOCRATS OFFERED BUDGET PLAN, A "NATIONAL DISGRACE"
Oct 14 2011
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, issued the following joint statement today to mark the 900th day since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan as required by the Congressional Budget Act:
“America is greatly in need of strong, competent leadership.
Our nation’s total debt is now larger than our entire economy. Unemployment is painfully high and growth is painfully slow. Since taking office, the president has accelerated Washington’s reckless spending spree, added trillions of dollars to the debt, and has refused to present a credible plan to put Washington’s fiscal house in order.
Meanwhile, Congress is divided. Republicans control the House, Democrats the Senate. As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan—in open defiance of the law and the public they serve. Senate Majority Leader Reid said it would be ‘foolish’ to have a budget. The reason for this evasion is clear: Democrat leaders in Washington think it is politically foolish to commit publicly to the kind of tax increases and health-care rationing that would be required to sustain their vision of ever-expanding federal government.
This is the second consecutive year Senate Democrats have disregarded the legally mandated budget process. In fact, this Sunday will mark the 900th day since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan as outlined in the Congressional Budget Act. It is a national disgrace.
As we encourage our colleagues to fulfill their basic duties of governance, we will continue to advance proposals aimed at strengthening the budget process.
It is time Washington played by the rules. Elected leaders have a legal—and moral—obligation to prioritize taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars with an honest budget. We’re approaching 900 days since Senate Democrats last took that obligation seriously.”
Permalink: http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/2011/10/sessions-ryan-900-days-since-senate-democrats-offered-budget-plan-is-national-disgrace
Oct 14 2011
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, issued the following joint statement today to mark the 900th day since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan as required by the Congressional Budget Act:
“America is greatly in need of strong, competent leadership.
Our nation’s total debt is now larger than our entire economy. Unemployment is painfully high and growth is painfully slow. Since taking office, the president has accelerated Washington’s reckless spending spree, added trillions of dollars to the debt, and has refused to present a credible plan to put Washington’s fiscal house in order.
Meanwhile, Congress is divided. Republicans control the House, Democrats the Senate. As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan—in open defiance of the law and the public they serve. Senate Majority Leader Reid said it would be ‘foolish’ to have a budget. The reason for this evasion is clear: Democrat leaders in Washington think it is politically foolish to commit publicly to the kind of tax increases and health-care rationing that would be required to sustain their vision of ever-expanding federal government.
This is the second consecutive year Senate Democrats have disregarded the legally mandated budget process. In fact, this Sunday will mark the 900th day since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan as outlined in the Congressional Budget Act. It is a national disgrace.
As we encourage our colleagues to fulfill their basic duties of governance, we will continue to advance proposals aimed at strengthening the budget process.
It is time Washington played by the rules. Elected leaders have a legal—and moral—obligation to prioritize taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars with an honest budget. We’re approaching 900 days since Senate Democrats last took that obligation seriously.”
Permalink: http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/2011/10/sessions-ryan-900-days-since-senate-democrats-offered-budget-plan-is-national-disgrace
OBAMA'S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MADE ANOTHER BAD "BET" USING U.S. TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS WITH COMPANY UNDER U.S. SECURITY EXCHANGE COMMISSION INVESTIGATION!
IS EV RECHARGING COMPANY ECOTALITY ANOTHER BAD OBAMA DOE "BET"?
Paul Chesser + 0/14/2011
In the aftermath of the Solyndra scandal, in which $535 million guaranteed by taxpayers for the solar company’s loan has been lost, President Obama told ABC News his people “felt that it was a good bet.”
It’s chilling that our country has come so far, that few people flinch at the idea that government habitually gives away money to enterprises, whether they are worthwhile “investments” or not. It doesn’t matter if they are (say, Apple or Google) or are not (Solyndra) – if there are going to be “bets,” they should be made by entities who don’t have the power to forcibly take money from others (that is, to tax). Some call it crony capitalism, which is only a byproduct of the whole concept of corporate welfare, which John Locke Foundation economist Roy Cordato has coined “corporate socialism.”
Nevertheless taxpayer-backed “Green” investments are the flavor of the moment, whether they are renewables such as wind or solar companies – many of which are fledgling and therefore struggling, unless they are part of a larger corporation such as General Electric. And then there is the transportation sector and electric vehicles.
The need to create recharging infrastructure is perhaps an even bigger example of waste and inefficiency that the federal government – mostly through the Department of Energy – is “investing” in its electric vehicle experiment, whose centerpiece is the Chevy Volt. As with other Obama administration “Green” energy initiatives, billions of taxpayer dollars are pouring into that effort.
As a result, owners of Volts or Nissan Leafs (not “Leaves,” I guess) are given $1,200 vehicle recharging stations, installed, for their homes or businesses. Also getting them are public utilities and government complexes, and some major retailers have accepted them – although Costco has concluded that the stations are a waste of space (even in California) and is having them removed from their 64 stores that have them. “Nobody ever uses them,” said Dennis Hoover, the general manager for Costco in northern California, to the New York Times.
Nevertheless it’s full-steam ahead, with at least one recipient of massive government funds that looks somewhat Solyndra-esque. San Francisco-based Ecotality was awarded two Department of Energy grants that totaled $115 million to install 14,000 of its Blink vehicle charges in 18 metropolitan areas around the country. Energy Secretary Steven Chu praised Ecotality subsidiary Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec, but now called Ecotality North America) at the Washington Auto Show in January 2010, at the same time he announced a $1.4 billion loan agreement with Nissan North America to retrofit its Smyrna, Tenn. plant to produce the Leaf.
“eTec is working on the largest EV infrastructure deployment in the world,” Chu said, “and we are working very closely to get EVs on the road.”
Like Solyndra, Ecotality appears to be another shaky “bet” for the Obama administration. Formerly Alchemy Enterprises, the company was launched in the April 1999 with the intent to become a wholesaler of environmentally friendly cleaning products. Alchemy’s starry-eyed founder, John Yamada, started the company with the idea it would compete with the giant in the industry (and his former employer), multinational corporation Ecolab, where he had worked and achieved the position of district sales manager. Other prospective competitors included Dow Chemical and Proctor and Gamble. Prior to Ecolab, the extent of Yamada’s experience was as an executive chef and kitchen supervisor at various restaurants. By mid-2004 he had amassed $34,455 in working capital to take on his former bosses, but according to SEC filings was hindered by a non-competition agreement. By the end of 2004 he had attracted a couple of other minor investors, but Yamada resigned as sole officer and director in December 2004 and returned to work for Ecolab. He turned his stock ownership in Alchemy over to another partner, Harold Sciotto, who was left with two-thirds ownership of the company.
In March 2005 Alchemy restated itself to the SEC under new leadership, but still with plans to sell biodegradable cleaning products purchased from other chemical manufacturers, with Alchemy’s product labels slapped on the bottles. But the company generated no revenues over the course of its existence, and had accumulated $26,881 in net loss. That humble existence would change within one year.
In February 2006 Sciotto/Alchemy informed the SEC of a planned stock split. The change, effective March 1, 2006, brought in Jonathan Read of Scottsdale as part of the ownership group and as company president. Read was previously Chairman and CEO of the Park Plaza Hotel chain, which he sold in 2003 to Carlson International and another investment group. During the first quarter of 2006 the mission of Alchemy was converted from biodegradable products to development of “electric power cell technology,” and apparently Read’s solid profile and connections enabled the company to draw another $750,000 in private investment, some of which was used to purchase the intellectual property of the fuel cell technology and commit to devote $1.35 million more to further develop the technology in conjunction with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. Under the new arrangement, Alchemy would also commit to paying Read and Sciotto $120,000 each annually, which was automatically renewable every year.
It wouldn’t be long before the deficits became much larger. By the end of the second quarter of 2006, Alchemy’s net loss had reached $9.3 million, thanks largely to a license agreement with California Institute of Technology, operator of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which transferred more fuel cell intellectual property to Alchemy at a cost of $8.2 million. But the venture capital investments continued also, as another infusion of more than $12 million would come in later in the year thanks to another sale of stock in the company. And in December, Alchemy would announce its name change to Ecotality, Inc.
The big changes to the company in 2006 were paralleled by almost unprecedented – and not seen since – campaign contributions by Read. Other than a $2,000 contribution to Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show Mead had not given to political campaigns before. But in the 2006 election cycle, as he tried to get Alchemy/Ecotality off the ground, he took a sudden interest in providing financial help to Arizona Democrat congressional candidates.
He began by donating $1,000 in December 2005 to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That was followed by three separate donations totaling $3,600 to the successful Congressional campaign of Harry Mitchell, a former state Senator and Mayor of Tempe, who unseated Republican J.D. Hayworth (Mitchell lost his “swing” district seat in 2010 to Republican David Schweikert). Victories like Mitchell’s helped President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi maintain their hold on Congress. Twenty-seven-year-old Colin Read, who is Ecotality’s Vice President for Corporate Development, was Mitchell’s assistant finance director in 2006. Jonathan Read also gave $2,100 to the 2006 Senate campaign of former Arizona Democratic Party leader Jim Pederson, who lost to Sen. Jon Kyl, and he also gave $5,000 to the state party.
Similarly Ecotality board member Slade Mead, an attorney and sports agent, engaged in a brief flurry of donations to federal candidates in the 2006 campaign, giving Mitchell the maximum allowed $4,200 and Giffords $3,915, plus another $500 to her for 2008.
Besides voting for the stimulus bill, Mitchell served on House committees that oversaw Science and Technology, and Transportation and Infrastructure – both key interests for Ecotality. But whether he had any influence in Ecotality’s receipt of $115 million from the Department of Energy via the stimulus is unclear. Read has not made any political contributions to federal candidates since 2006, according to Center for Responsive Politics.
What is clear is that Ecotality – from the time Read joined the company – has rewarded its executives well, spent heavily on technology rights, made acquisition after acquisition, and repeatedly issued more stocks for needed cash. Part of Read’s compensation is stock in Ecotality valued at more than $2.4 million at the time it was issued. Among its purchases were companies with futuristic names such as Fuel Cell Store, Innergy, and the aforementioned eTec.
Despite all the funding it has attracted from private investors, and its ambitious efforts on other fronts, Ecotality’s $115 million DOE contract for the EV Project accounted for 51 percent of its revenues this year through June 30 (page 15). The company reported a net loss of $12.3 million for the same period. An industry Web publication, PluginCars.com, reported last month that the rollout of charging infrastructure under the DOE agreement has been slow, which Ecotality blamed on the Japanese earthquake’s effect on Nissan’s ability to produce the Leaf. Lax sales of the Volt probably aren’t helping either.
"We're the tail on the dog, and the EV rollout is moving a little slower than had been anticipated,” said Don Karner, president of ECOtality North America. “We have applied to the Department of Energy for a new completion date of the second quarter of 2012."
PluginCars.com also reported that only 3,300 chargers had been installed as of mid-September – far short of the 14,000 Ecotality announced, in April, it would have placed by the end of 2011. The publication also noted several problems that users of Ecotality’s Blink system had with frozen screens, system crashes, and problems with Wi-fi connectivity. The same April press release boasted of $5.8 million received from the DOE contract and a $10 million “strategic investment” from the ABB Group, another international corporation that lives partially on government subsidies for battery cell research. That Ecotality gained a large percentage of its income from taxpayers, and by turning over 20 percent of its stock (and two slots on its board of directors) to ABB (whose CEO – surprise! – is a former GE executive), is not exactly the equivalent of winning massive sales to customers in a free market. The big net losses are indicative of that.
As for the government grant, in the 1 ¾ years since the project’s inception, Ecotality reported to the DOE that it had created 129 jobs as the result of $12.18 million in expenditures from the grant, which averages to $94,396 per job.
The same week Secretary Chu praised Ecotality/eTec at the auto show, President Obama cited the company as an example of success that resulted from the stimulus.
“The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act,” the president said in his 2010 State of the Union address. “Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its work force because of the Recovery Act.”
So you can believe the man who said Solyndra was “a good bet” that bottom-line loser Ecotality is similarly worthy, or you can trust what a DOE expert had to say about the stimulus “investments” last year after another $4.2 million grant to ABB.
"These are all high-risk projects," said Arun Majumdar, the energy department's director of advanced energy research, to The News & Observer of Raleigh in July 2010. "There's a potential high rate of failure. You never know which one is going to succeed commercially."
Just what you want to hear about “investments” of taxpayer money, isn’t it? But all that matters to the politicians is that the jobs get “created” and that they get the credit. The blame for failure and destruction of those jobs can be laid at others’ feet.
Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and is executive director of American Tradition Institute.
Paul Chesser + 0/14/2011
In the aftermath of the Solyndra scandal, in which $535 million guaranteed by taxpayers for the solar company’s loan has been lost, President Obama told ABC News his people “felt that it was a good bet.”
It’s chilling that our country has come so far, that few people flinch at the idea that government habitually gives away money to enterprises, whether they are worthwhile “investments” or not. It doesn’t matter if they are (say, Apple or Google) or are not (Solyndra) – if there are going to be “bets,” they should be made by entities who don’t have the power to forcibly take money from others (that is, to tax). Some call it crony capitalism, which is only a byproduct of the whole concept of corporate welfare, which John Locke Foundation economist Roy Cordato has coined “corporate socialism.”
Nevertheless taxpayer-backed “Green” investments are the flavor of the moment, whether they are renewables such as wind or solar companies – many of which are fledgling and therefore struggling, unless they are part of a larger corporation such as General Electric. And then there is the transportation sector and electric vehicles.
The need to create recharging infrastructure is perhaps an even bigger example of waste and inefficiency that the federal government – mostly through the Department of Energy – is “investing” in its electric vehicle experiment, whose centerpiece is the Chevy Volt. As with other Obama administration “Green” energy initiatives, billions of taxpayer dollars are pouring into that effort.
As a result, owners of Volts or Nissan Leafs (not “Leaves,” I guess) are given $1,200 vehicle recharging stations, installed, for their homes or businesses. Also getting them are public utilities and government complexes, and some major retailers have accepted them – although Costco has concluded that the stations are a waste of space (even in California) and is having them removed from their 64 stores that have them. “Nobody ever uses them,” said Dennis Hoover, the general manager for Costco in northern California, to the New York Times.
Nevertheless it’s full-steam ahead, with at least one recipient of massive government funds that looks somewhat Solyndra-esque. San Francisco-based Ecotality was awarded two Department of Energy grants that totaled $115 million to install 14,000 of its Blink vehicle charges in 18 metropolitan areas around the country. Energy Secretary Steven Chu praised Ecotality subsidiary Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec, but now called Ecotality North America) at the Washington Auto Show in January 2010, at the same time he announced a $1.4 billion loan agreement with Nissan North America to retrofit its Smyrna, Tenn. plant to produce the Leaf.
“eTec is working on the largest EV infrastructure deployment in the world,” Chu said, “and we are working very closely to get EVs on the road.”
Like Solyndra, Ecotality appears to be another shaky “bet” for the Obama administration. Formerly Alchemy Enterprises, the company was launched in the April 1999 with the intent to become a wholesaler of environmentally friendly cleaning products. Alchemy’s starry-eyed founder, John Yamada, started the company with the idea it would compete with the giant in the industry (and his former employer), multinational corporation Ecolab, where he had worked and achieved the position of district sales manager. Other prospective competitors included Dow Chemical and Proctor and Gamble. Prior to Ecolab, the extent of Yamada’s experience was as an executive chef and kitchen supervisor at various restaurants. By mid-2004 he had amassed $34,455 in working capital to take on his former bosses, but according to SEC filings was hindered by a non-competition agreement. By the end of 2004 he had attracted a couple of other minor investors, but Yamada resigned as sole officer and director in December 2004 and returned to work for Ecolab. He turned his stock ownership in Alchemy over to another partner, Harold Sciotto, who was left with two-thirds ownership of the company.
In March 2005 Alchemy restated itself to the SEC under new leadership, but still with plans to sell biodegradable cleaning products purchased from other chemical manufacturers, with Alchemy’s product labels slapped on the bottles. But the company generated no revenues over the course of its existence, and had accumulated $26,881 in net loss. That humble existence would change within one year.
In February 2006 Sciotto/Alchemy informed the SEC of a planned stock split. The change, effective March 1, 2006, brought in Jonathan Read of Scottsdale as part of the ownership group and as company president. Read was previously Chairman and CEO of the Park Plaza Hotel chain, which he sold in 2003 to Carlson International and another investment group. During the first quarter of 2006 the mission of Alchemy was converted from biodegradable products to development of “electric power cell technology,” and apparently Read’s solid profile and connections enabled the company to draw another $750,000 in private investment, some of which was used to purchase the intellectual property of the fuel cell technology and commit to devote $1.35 million more to further develop the technology in conjunction with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. Under the new arrangement, Alchemy would also commit to paying Read and Sciotto $120,000 each annually, which was automatically renewable every year.
It wouldn’t be long before the deficits became much larger. By the end of the second quarter of 2006, Alchemy’s net loss had reached $9.3 million, thanks largely to a license agreement with California Institute of Technology, operator of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which transferred more fuel cell intellectual property to Alchemy at a cost of $8.2 million. But the venture capital investments continued also, as another infusion of more than $12 million would come in later in the year thanks to another sale of stock in the company. And in December, Alchemy would announce its name change to Ecotality, Inc.
The big changes to the company in 2006 were paralleled by almost unprecedented – and not seen since – campaign contributions by Read. Other than a $2,000 contribution to Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show Mead had not given to political campaigns before. But in the 2006 election cycle, as he tried to get Alchemy/Ecotality off the ground, he took a sudden interest in providing financial help to Arizona Democrat congressional candidates.
He began by donating $1,000 in December 2005 to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That was followed by three separate donations totaling $3,600 to the successful Congressional campaign of Harry Mitchell, a former state Senator and Mayor of Tempe, who unseated Republican J.D. Hayworth (Mitchell lost his “swing” district seat in 2010 to Republican David Schweikert). Victories like Mitchell’s helped President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi maintain their hold on Congress. Twenty-seven-year-old Colin Read, who is Ecotality’s Vice President for Corporate Development, was Mitchell’s assistant finance director in 2006. Jonathan Read also gave $2,100 to the 2006 Senate campaign of former Arizona Democratic Party leader Jim Pederson, who lost to Sen. Jon Kyl, and he also gave $5,000 to the state party.
Similarly Ecotality board member Slade Mead, an attorney and sports agent, engaged in a brief flurry of donations to federal candidates in the 2006 campaign, giving Mitchell the maximum allowed $4,200 and Giffords $3,915, plus another $500 to her for 2008.
Besides voting for the stimulus bill, Mitchell served on House committees that oversaw Science and Technology, and Transportation and Infrastructure – both key interests for Ecotality. But whether he had any influence in Ecotality’s receipt of $115 million from the Department of Energy via the stimulus is unclear. Read has not made any political contributions to federal candidates since 2006, according to Center for Responsive Politics.
What is clear is that Ecotality – from the time Read joined the company – has rewarded its executives well, spent heavily on technology rights, made acquisition after acquisition, and repeatedly issued more stocks for needed cash. Part of Read’s compensation is stock in Ecotality valued at more than $2.4 million at the time it was issued. Among its purchases were companies with futuristic names such as Fuel Cell Store, Innergy, and the aforementioned eTec.
Despite all the funding it has attracted from private investors, and its ambitious efforts on other fronts, Ecotality’s $115 million DOE contract for the EV Project accounted for 51 percent of its revenues this year through June 30 (page 15). The company reported a net loss of $12.3 million for the same period. An industry Web publication, PluginCars.com, reported last month that the rollout of charging infrastructure under the DOE agreement has been slow, which Ecotality blamed on the Japanese earthquake’s effect on Nissan’s ability to produce the Leaf. Lax sales of the Volt probably aren’t helping either.
"We're the tail on the dog, and the EV rollout is moving a little slower than had been anticipated,” said Don Karner, president of ECOtality North America. “We have applied to the Department of Energy for a new completion date of the second quarter of 2012."
PluginCars.com also reported that only 3,300 chargers had been installed as of mid-September – far short of the 14,000 Ecotality announced, in April, it would have placed by the end of 2011. The publication also noted several problems that users of Ecotality’s Blink system had with frozen screens, system crashes, and problems with Wi-fi connectivity. The same April press release boasted of $5.8 million received from the DOE contract and a $10 million “strategic investment” from the ABB Group, another international corporation that lives partially on government subsidies for battery cell research. That Ecotality gained a large percentage of its income from taxpayers, and by turning over 20 percent of its stock (and two slots on its board of directors) to ABB (whose CEO – surprise! – is a former GE executive), is not exactly the equivalent of winning massive sales to customers in a free market. The big net losses are indicative of that.
As for the government grant, in the 1 ¾ years since the project’s inception, Ecotality reported to the DOE that it had created 129 jobs as the result of $12.18 million in expenditures from the grant, which averages to $94,396 per job.
The same week Secretary Chu praised Ecotality/eTec at the auto show, President Obama cited the company as an example of success that resulted from the stimulus.
“The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act,” the president said in his 2010 State of the Union address. “Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its work force because of the Recovery Act.”
So you can believe the man who said Solyndra was “a good bet” that bottom-line loser Ecotality is similarly worthy, or you can trust what a DOE expert had to say about the stimulus “investments” last year after another $4.2 million grant to ABB.
"These are all high-risk projects," said Arun Majumdar, the energy department's director of advanced energy research, to The News & Observer of Raleigh in July 2010. "There's a potential high rate of failure. You never know which one is going to succeed commercially."
Just what you want to hear about “investments” of taxpayer money, isn’t it? But all that matters to the politicians is that the jobs get “created” and that they get the credit. The blame for failure and destruction of those jobs can be laid at others’ feet.
Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and is executive director of American Tradition Institute.
U.S. INVESTIGATION REVEALS CHINESE FIRMS LINKED TO CONTAMINATED HEPARIN STILL SUPPLYING CRUDE HEPARIN TO U.S. CITIZENS!
Ongoing Investigation Reveals Chinese Firms Linked to Contaminated Heparin Still Supplying Crude Heparin to U.S.
Committee Leaders Alarmed at FDA’s Lack of Urgency in Solving Deadly Heparin Crisis -
FDA Has Stalled Turning Over Information to Investigators Despite 12 Million Americans Being Treated with Blood Thinning Drug Annually
October 27, 2011
WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders are pressing the Food and Drug Administration for answers as part of their investigation of the now 3-year unsolved case of toxic and sometimes lethal contaminated heparin supplies that were imported from China and given to U.S. patients. Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX), Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA), Health Subcommittee Vice Chairman Dr. Michael Burgess (R-TX), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) have identified very serious public health concerns arising from the ongoing investigation, which they bring to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s personal attention in a letter sent Wednesday reiterating requests for FDA cooperation with the probe.
In the letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg, the Committee leaders wrote, “Documents provided by FDA show that over the last few years the FDA has had credible evidence that at least two Chinese firms in the supply chain of Baxter and Scientific Protein Laboratories (SPL), the active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturer for Baxter, supplied lots of heparin contaminated with oversulfated chondroitin sulfate used to make lots of Baxter heparin. This contaminated heparin has been linked to deaths of American patients. These two Chinese companies are also implicated in supplying contaminated heparin to other heparin companies besides Baxter and Scientific Protein Laboratories (SPL). We also have reason to believe that these two Chinese firms are still supplying crude heparin that is being imported into the United States.”
The Committee leaders continued, “Based on available information, we have seen no indication that the FDA has issued warning letters and/or import alerts to these firms even though FDA has issued warning letters and import alerts to other Chinese heparin firms. Moreover, FDA inspections and correspondence with Chinese heparin firms that possessed/controlled contaminated heparin show that in some cases the Chinese firms identified to FDA the particular workshop that provided the tainted heparin and the workshop was then disqualified. However, we have seen no indication that FDA took any further action to alert heparin companies to avoid these disqualified workshops or to investigate the findings.”
The Committee leaders are seeking to understand FDA’s enforcement policy regarding Chinese firms implicated by industry sources as suppliers of contaminated heparin. The leaders firmly believe discovering the root cause of the heparin crisis is an urgent matter of public health and that the public deserves long-overdue answers. The members are concerned that FDA has been less than forthcoming in providing documents and information to committee investigators.
Underscoring the urgency of the investigation, according to the October 2011 issue of The GMP Letter published by FDA News, the contaminated heparin crisis “could still be happening.” The GMP Letter reports, “‘Because of our inability to identify and trace in some cases who all the different members are of this particular supply chain,’ the agency believes the problem is not yet completely under control, Steven Wolfgang, acting associate director for risk science, intelligence and prioritization at (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s Office of Compliance, said Sept. 21 at the 20th annual Parenteral Drug Association/FDA joint regulatory conference in Washington, D.C.”
Dating back to 2008, committee Republicans have been pressing the FDA for answers about the agency’s handling of the investigation into the contaminated heparin. The U.S. Government Accountability Office also faulted some of the FDA’s efforts, including the decision to continue allowing drugs to be imported from Chinese facilities that refused to allow full inspections. In February, Committee leaders called on the Food and Drug Administration to release documents related to its response to the unsolved case.
View a copy of the letter to Commissioner Hamburg HERE.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Letters/112th/102611%20Letter%20to%20FDA%20re%20heparin%20investigation.pdf
U.S. LAWMAKERS SAY ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS SHOULD BE WAIVED FOR U.S. BORDER PATROL OPERATIONS!
U.S. LAWMAKERS SAY ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS SHOULD BE WAIVED FOR U.S. BORDER PATROL OPERATIONS!
Lawmakers say environmental laws should be waived for Border Patrol operations
“What the Border Patrol says they really need down there is not necessarily more manpower or money,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, whose bill easing the restrictions passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. “They need more east-west access on those public lands.”
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 27, 2011 -
Associated Press + Kevin Freking
Federal agents trying to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border say they’re hampered by laws that keep them from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land because it falls under U.S. environmental protection, leaving it to wildlife — and illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed.
A growing number of lawmakers are saying such restrictions have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals. In recent weeks, three congressional panels, including two in the GOP-controlled House and one in the Democratic-controlled Senate, have moved to give the Border Patrol unfettered access to all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the border with Mexico.
Two of the panels expanded the legislation’s reach to include the border with Canada.
The votes signal a brewing battle in Congress that will determine whether border agents can disregard environmental protections as they do their job.
Dozens of environmental laws were waived for the building of the border fence, and activists say this is just another conservative attempt to find an excuse to do away with environmental protections.
But agents who have worked along the border say the laws crimp their power to secure the border.
Zack Taylor, a retired Border Patrol agent who lives about nine miles from the Arizona-Mexico border, said smugglers soon learn the areas that agents are least likely to frequent.
“The (smuggling) route stays on public lands from the border to Maricopa County,” Taylor said, referring to the state’s most populous county. “The smugglers have free rein. It has become a lawless area.”
Environmental groups said lawmakers lining up to support the legislation have routinely opposed the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and dozens of other laws, and they accused the lawmakers of using illegal immigration as the latest excuse to gut protections.
“For every problem that’s out there in society, there’s some extremists in Congress who say the solution is, ‘Well, let’s roll back the environmental laws, let’s open up the public lands,’” said Paul Spitler, spokesman for the Wilderness Society. “It doesn’t comport to reality, but it fits their mindset that it’s simply the environmental regulations that are holding back America.”
Nearly 40 percent of the land on the U.S.-Mexico border and about a quarter of the land on the U.S.-Canadian border is public land, including Big Bend National Park in Texas and Glacier National Park in Montana. Driving is prohibited on those parts of the land that are designated wilderness areas.
Wildlife officials say vehicle use can be particularly hazardous in the desert. Water gathers in the tire tracks instead of in natural pools and evaporates more quickly, leading to less vegetation and less available food. Some areas, such as Big Bend and the desert farther west, are deadly to traverse in certain months and immigrants and smugglers avoid them.
The wilderness areas also have other restrictions on development. Border patrol agents, for example, must get permission from other federal agencies before maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. Federal auditors found it can take months to get that permission.
“What the Border Patrol says they really need down there is not necessarily more manpower or money,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, whose bill easing the restrictions passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. “They need more east-west access on those public lands.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsored an amendment that requires the Agriculture and Interior departments to give Border Patrol personnel immediate access to federal lands on the southern border for security activities, including for routine motorized patrols. The amendment passed a Senate committee with the support of five Democrats and eight Republicans.
McCain told colleagues that up to 100 people sit on mountaintops near the border serving as lookouts for smugglers, suggesting that improved law enforcement access on those mountains would deter the lookouts.
“What he says is absolutely true,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who visited Arizona with McCain. “For the life of me, I can’t understand the hesitancy on the part of Interior or Agriculture to provide access to border security guards.”
Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., sponsored a similar amendment that extends the law to the Canadian border as well, and it passed by a voice vote, which is usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation.
During a House subcommittee hearing in April, Ron Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said he had “no complaints” about environmental laws.
But George McCubbin, president of the union that represents about 17,000 Border Patrol agents and support staff, likened current policy to telling city police officers they can’t patrol a particular neighborhood.
“If they want to get serious about this problem on the border, they can’t be restricting areas we go in,” said McCubbin, who works in Casa Grande, Ariz. “Don’t let us there and you have nothing but the bad element going through that area.”
The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, reported that supervisors at 17 of 26 Border Patrol stations along the Mexican border said access to federal lands had been limited because of environmental restrictions. Yet, the vast majority of the agents in charge also said that they were generally able to adjust their patrols without sacrificing effectiveness.
Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups cite the GAO’s findings in arguing against giving the Border Patrol authority to operate as it sees fit on federal lands.
“The record is clear. The problem this bill claims to be solving does not exist,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. “So, if this is not about border security, what is it about? It’s about undermining fundamental environmental protections for millions of Americans.”
Bishop said federal agents would be better stewards of sensitive lands than illegal immigrants and smugglers.
“What is so ironic is that the environmental degradation is not being done by the Border Patrol,” Bishop said. “It’s being done by the illegals who are coming across.”
###
REP. GRAVES & COMMITTEE MEMBERS TELL FCC TO HALT "WAIVER" TO LIGHTSQUARED!
Graves & Committee Members Ask the FCC to Halt Waiver on LightSquared Proposal Until Federal Tests Reveal No GPS Interference
“LightSquared’s waiver should not be approved until federal tests reveal there will be no interference and unexpected consequences for small businesses.”
Washington, Oct 28 -
WASHINGTON— House Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) today along with eight members of the Committee sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski requesting that the FCC not proceed with LightSquared’s waiver until federal testing ascertains that there will be no interference with all types of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. The Committee also requests the FCC to report their action plan regarding the proposal to the Committee. Full text of the letter is available here.
LightSquared is proposing to build a ground-based broadband network that could interfere with current GPS technology and impact millions of small businesses.
“While LightSquared’s aim to increase broadband to rural areas is a noble goal, we must find a solution without jeopardizing established GPS systems and further burdening small businesses,” said Graves. “Under the current LightSquared proposal, small businesses would be left to foot the bill that will easily cost billions to replace or retrofit their current GPS devices.
“Small companies should not be required to spend one dime on account of this plan— and that is why we are calling on the FCC to put a hold on the waiver until all federal tests make clear there will be no interruptions to current GPS systems.”
The letter was signed by House Small Business Committee Members: Mike Coffman (R-CO), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Scott Tipton (R-CO), Jeff Landry (R-LA), Allen West (R-FL), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Richard Hanna (R-NY), and Bobby Shilling (R-IL).
On October 12th, Chairman Graves held a full committee hearing to examine LightSquared’s proposal and its effect on small businesses. Witnesses included small business owners, as well as, LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeff Carlisle.
“LightSquared’s waiver should not be approved until federal tests reveal there will be no interference and unexpected consequences for small businesses.”
Washington, Oct 28 -
WASHINGTON— House Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) today along with eight members of the Committee sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski requesting that the FCC not proceed with LightSquared’s waiver until federal testing ascertains that there will be no interference with all types of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. The Committee also requests the FCC to report their action plan regarding the proposal to the Committee. Full text of the letter is available here.
LightSquared is proposing to build a ground-based broadband network that could interfere with current GPS technology and impact millions of small businesses.
“While LightSquared’s aim to increase broadband to rural areas is a noble goal, we must find a solution without jeopardizing established GPS systems and further burdening small businesses,” said Graves. “Under the current LightSquared proposal, small businesses would be left to foot the bill that will easily cost billions to replace or retrofit their current GPS devices.
“Small companies should not be required to spend one dime on account of this plan— and that is why we are calling on the FCC to put a hold on the waiver until all federal tests make clear there will be no interruptions to current GPS systems.”
The letter was signed by House Small Business Committee Members: Mike Coffman (R-CO), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Scott Tipton (R-CO), Jeff Landry (R-LA), Allen West (R-FL), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Richard Hanna (R-NY), and Bobby Shilling (R-IL).
On October 12th, Chairman Graves held a full committee hearing to examine LightSquared’s proposal and its effect on small businesses. Witnesses included small business owners, as well as, LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeff Carlisle.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER BOEHNER RIPS RUSSIA'S SOVIET-STYLE BEHAVIOR
House of Representatives - POLITICS
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER BOEHNER RIPS RUSSIA'S SOVIET-STYLE BEHAVIOR
By Mike Emanuel
October 25, 2011 + FoxNews.com
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, meets with reporters following a Republican strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011.
Two and a half years after the Obama administration “reset” relations with Russia, House Speaker John Boehner says he’s troubled that the country seems to be slipping back into its Soviet-era ways.
Boehner pointed Tuesday to the recent news that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin plans to return to the presidency after years as prime minister following his hand-picking successor Dmitri Medvedev.
“Within Russia, control is the order of the day, with key industries nationalized, the independent media repressed, and the loyal opposition beaten and jailed. Russia uses natural resources as a political weapon. And it plays ball with unstable and dangerous regimes,” Boehner said at the Heritage Foundation.
“In Russia’s use of old tools and old thinking, we see nothing short of an attempt to restore Soviet-style power and influence,” he said.
Boehner also cited Russia’s exertion of authority over former Soviet satellites like Georgia, and he called for Moscow to stop watering down attempts by the U.S. and other allies to hold Iran accountable at the U.N. Security Council.
“We should do more to compel the Kremlin to curtail its relationship with Iran, particularly related to its nuclear program and missile technology,” Boehner said.
White House National Security spokesman Tommy Vietor defended the administration's Russia policy, saying it has "succeeded in supplying our troops in Afghanistan, sanctioning the Iranian regime, achieving the landmark new START Treaty, and securing nuclear materials from terrorists, while we have remained unwavering in our commitment to democratic principle and our support for European security."
State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland says Russia has been helpful with Iran
“We've had progress together in tightening sanctions on Iran and this continues to be a subject in our bilateral dialogue… what we can do together, what we can each do to tighten the economic noose on Iran,” Nuland told reporters.
Experts like Graham Allison of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government say years after the Cold War, Russia is still quite relevant – for energy and other strategic regions.
“Russia is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world today - almost nobody knows that, but if you take oil and gas combined, Russia is the largest producer,” Allison told Fox News.
In terms of getting equipment and vital necessities to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. “Half of those supplies daily now go through the Northern route, which is basically Russia and states that are beholden to Russia,” Allison said.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said Russia is exerting influence in the global supply and demand of energy to gain leverage over America’s European allies.
“If Russia wants to be viewed as powerful, relevant, and influential, it must develop a proper respect for the rule of law,” he told the Heritage Foundation. “This would require a stark change in behavior – including ending their leveraging of energy. Then, and only then, can we view Russia as a strategic partner.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson suggested complaints by Boehner or others about the president’s handling of policy should stop at the water’s end.
“(Boehner), of course, can say anything that he'd like and I won't conjecture on speaking ill of the country or having foreign policy and -- or disagreements end at our shore line. That has been the tradition of the country.
But Boehner said the administration needs to do more than find areas of cooperation on trade or arms control. It must not only demonstrate stronger moral authority when it comes to Russia, but lead with a respect for the traditions that allowed the U.S. to prevail over its old foe.
“International cooperation can only be transactional to a point. We cannot sacrifice values, or get away with walling off our interests from our moral imperatives. … When America leads, it gives optimism and hope. When America looks away, it causes confusion and uncertainty,” Boehner said.
“Instead of downplaying Russia’s disregard for democratic values and human rights, we should call them on it. … The United States should insist Russia ‘reset’ its own policies. If those appeals require teeth, the House stands ready to provide them,” he said.
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER BOEHNER RIPS RUSSIA'S SOVIET-STYLE BEHAVIOR
By Mike Emanuel
October 25, 2011 + FoxNews.com
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, meets with reporters following a Republican strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011.
Two and a half years after the Obama administration “reset” relations with Russia, House Speaker John Boehner says he’s troubled that the country seems to be slipping back into its Soviet-era ways.
Boehner pointed Tuesday to the recent news that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin plans to return to the presidency after years as prime minister following his hand-picking successor Dmitri Medvedev.
“Within Russia, control is the order of the day, with key industries nationalized, the independent media repressed, and the loyal opposition beaten and jailed. Russia uses natural resources as a political weapon. And it plays ball with unstable and dangerous regimes,” Boehner said at the Heritage Foundation.
“In Russia’s use of old tools and old thinking, we see nothing short of an attempt to restore Soviet-style power and influence,” he said.
Boehner also cited Russia’s exertion of authority over former Soviet satellites like Georgia, and he called for Moscow to stop watering down attempts by the U.S. and other allies to hold Iran accountable at the U.N. Security Council.
“We should do more to compel the Kremlin to curtail its relationship with Iran, particularly related to its nuclear program and missile technology,” Boehner said.
White House National Security spokesman Tommy Vietor defended the administration's Russia policy, saying it has "succeeded in supplying our troops in Afghanistan, sanctioning the Iranian regime, achieving the landmark new START Treaty, and securing nuclear materials from terrorists, while we have remained unwavering in our commitment to democratic principle and our support for European security."
State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland says Russia has been helpful with Iran
“We've had progress together in tightening sanctions on Iran and this continues to be a subject in our bilateral dialogue… what we can do together, what we can each do to tighten the economic noose on Iran,” Nuland told reporters.
Experts like Graham Allison of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government say years after the Cold War, Russia is still quite relevant – for energy and other strategic regions.
“Russia is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world today - almost nobody knows that, but if you take oil and gas combined, Russia is the largest producer,” Allison told Fox News.
In terms of getting equipment and vital necessities to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. “Half of those supplies daily now go through the Northern route, which is basically Russia and states that are beholden to Russia,” Allison said.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said Russia is exerting influence in the global supply and demand of energy to gain leverage over America’s European allies.
“If Russia wants to be viewed as powerful, relevant, and influential, it must develop a proper respect for the rule of law,” he told the Heritage Foundation. “This would require a stark change in behavior – including ending their leveraging of energy. Then, and only then, can we view Russia as a strategic partner.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson suggested complaints by Boehner or others about the president’s handling of policy should stop at the water’s end.
“(Boehner), of course, can say anything that he'd like and I won't conjecture on speaking ill of the country or having foreign policy and -- or disagreements end at our shore line. That has been the tradition of the country.
But Boehner said the administration needs to do more than find areas of cooperation on trade or arms control. It must not only demonstrate stronger moral authority when it comes to Russia, but lead with a respect for the traditions that allowed the U.S. to prevail over its old foe.
“International cooperation can only be transactional to a point. We cannot sacrifice values, or get away with walling off our interests from our moral imperatives. … When America leads, it gives optimism and hope. When America looks away, it causes confusion and uncertainty,” Boehner said.
“Instead of downplaying Russia’s disregard for democratic values and human rights, we should call them on it. … The United States should insist Russia ‘reset’ its own policies. If those appeals require teeth, the House stands ready to provide them,” he said.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT CHAIR ISSA PROBES OBAMA'S DOE LOAN TO A RUSSIAN-OWNED MICHIGAN STEEL COMPANY AS FBI PURSUES RUSSIAN SPIES!
ISSA PROBES POTENTIAL ENERGY DEPARTMENT LOAN TO STEEL COMPANY
By Ben Geman - 10/27/11 05:50 AM ET
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is attacking a potential $730 million Energy Department loan to a company for manufacturing high strength automotive steel in Michigan.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Issa questions whether Severstal North America – a subsidiary of Russian steel giant OAO Severstal – should receive public financing to re-tool and expand facilities in Dearborn, Mich.
His letter argues that Severstal was already moving ahead with production plans “with apparently no need for federal financing” and also questions whether the project is even eligible under the requirements of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program.
Issa also notes the wealth and connections of Alexei Mordashov, the CEO of the Russian parent company, who according to Forbes has a net worth of $18.5 billion. Issa argues the company could self-finance the project or find funding on the open market.
“Given the immense wealth and power of Severstal’s CEO and the fact that the corporation had already made significant investments in the project, it is surprising that DOE would choose Severstal for a loan meant to spark new businesses and technologies within the automotive industry,” he writes in the Oct. 20 letter released Wednesday.
Issa is already probing Energy Department renewable energy loan guarantees following the failure of the federally-backed California solar manufacturing company Solyndra, which collapsed several weeks ago despite receiving a $535 million Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009.
The Energy Department announced conditional approval of the Severstal loan in July but has not given final approval. Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera defended the potential financing in a statement Wednesday evening.
“Severstal’s application is for a project that would help make American car manufacturers more competitive as demand for lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles increases, strengthen the American steel industry and support more than 2,500 construction jobs and over 260 permanent manufacturing jobs in Michigan,” he said.
LaVera added:
“While it is important to note that the due diligence on the project is continuing, this project has received bipartisan support because producing the next generation of automotive advanced high strength steel is vital to helping American workers remain competitive.”
The auto loan program was authorized in a 2007 energy law that passed with wide bipartisan support and was signed by President George W. Bush.
A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers in July 2010 wrote to Chu expressing support for loan applications submitted by Michigan-based automakers and component suppliers.
Their letter said that “maintaining and building America’s manufacturing base is at the heart of the ATVM program.”
Signers included Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is spearheading the GOP probe of the Solyndra financing.
But Issa is now questioning several aspects of the Severstal financing.
His letter to Chu questions the need for expanded advanced high-strength steel production capacity in the U.S. market, arguing the Severstal financing “would seem to be a waste of taxpayer funds . . . when there is already more than enough production available for this material.”
Issa is asking Chu for an array of documents and information by 5 p.m. on Nov. 3. Issa’s office released the letter following a Fox News interview and segment highlighting the congressman’s probe.
Severstal is defending its project in the wake of Issa’s new criticism. A spokeswoman told The Detroit News that the company has met the requirements of the ATVM loan program during a two-year due diligence process.
“The next-generation advanced high-strength steel technology we are putting in place with this project is …critical for advanced-technology vehicle manufacturers to meet the future fuel efficiency goals,” spokeswoman Katya Pruett told the paper.
++++++
FEDERAL CHARGES AGAINST RUSSIAN SPIES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/world/main6627393.shtml
++++++
Russian Man Charged with Sending Thousands of Spam E-Mails
U.S. Attorney’s Office
December 02, 2010
Eastern District of Wisconsin
The Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced that Oleg Nikolaenko (23) of Moscow, Russia, was arraigned today on a one-count indictment alleging a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1037(a)(3) and two.
The grand jury returned the indictment on November 16, 2010, after Mr. Nikolaenko’s arrest in Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 4, 2010. Mr. Nikolaenko was detained today by Magistrate Judge Patricia J. Gorence pending trial.
The indictment alleges that Mr. Nikolaenko knowingly and materially falsified header information in e-mail messages to disguise the e-mails’ true origin. The indictment alleges that the volume of electronic mail messages transmitted in furtherance of the offense exceeded 250,000 during a one-year period. The maximum possible penalty for this offense is imprisonment for not more than three years, a fine of not more than $250,000, and up to one year of supervised release. A restitution order also may be issued. A scheduling conference has been set for December 21, 2010, before Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan.
The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint previously filed against Mr. Nikolaenko alleges that he sent billions of spam e-mails on behalf of individuals who were selling counterfeit Rolexes, non-FDA approved herbal remedies, and counterfeit prescription medications. In return, Mr. Nikolaenko was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Nikolaenko is alleged to have initiated the sending of these messages by use of his botnet, which had been dubbed the “Mega-D” botnet. As detailed in the complaint, the director of malware research at a private Internet security firm estimated that at various times, the Mega-D botnet was capable of sending 10 billion spam e-mail messages a day, all of which contained materially falsified header information.
As described in the complaint, a botnet is a collection of compromised computers running programs under a common command and control structure. A botnet’s originator can control the group remotely and usually for nefarious purposes. Botnets serve various purposes, including launching and controlling denial-of-service attacks, creating and misusing e-mail for spam, and the theft of personal identifying information.
An indictment is a formal charging document. Mr. Nikolaenko is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The FBI is investigating this case, with assistance from the FTC. This case is assigned to Assistant United States Attorneys Brian J. Resler and Erica N. O’Neil, and Trial Attorney William Hall of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
THE CLINTOMAS' CZAR PIPELINE PLAN STIRS DEBATE ON BOTH SIDES OF HUDSON!
A crowd shouted down Karen Gentile, from the federal Transportation Department, at a hearing in Greenwich Village last week. Richard Perry/The New York Times
PIPELINE PLAN STIRS DEBATE ON BOTH SIDES OF HUDSON!
By MIREYA NAVARRO
October 26, 2011
A debate that pits energy needs against safety risks is playing out in the New York region as federal officials weigh approval of a natural gas pipeline that would terminate in the West Village in Manhattan.
The $850 million project calls for 15 miles of new pipeline.
The $850 million project, developed by Spectra Energy of Houston, calls for 15 miles of new pipeline to run from Staten Island to Bayonne and Jersey City before crossing into Manhattan. Five miles of pipeline between Staten Island and Linden, N.J., would also be replaced.
The new pipeline, the first major one to be built in New York City in decades, has drawn firm support from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and barely a shrug from environmental groups. But with a decision by federal regulators expected early next year, an opposition campaign is gaining some heft. Critics of the natural gas drilling method known as fracking have also leapt into the fray, arguing that the pipeline would abet an environmental ill by carrying some gas extracted through fracking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose approval is needed for the pipeline’s construction, is receiving public comment through Monday.
At a raucous public meeting it held last week in Greenwich Village, more than 300 antidrilling and Occupy Wall Street protesters joined forces to assail the project.
“You’re about to mainline an ecological disaster for the rest of the state,” the actor Mark Ruffalo, the celebrity face of the antifracking movement, said to a standing ovation. “I’m begging you people to stand up for something that’s bigger than our bureaucratic system.”
Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy of Jersey City has steadily denounced the project, saying it would threaten some prime development areas and jeopardize the safety of many of the city’s nearly 250,000 residents. He also asks why six miles of the pipeline would run through Jersey City but only graze Manhattan, given that New York City has greater fuel needs and would be the main beneficiary.
“We run all the risk, and our friends to the east get all the benefit,” Mr. Healy said in an interview on Tuesday.
In the West Village, residents only recently began mobilizing against the pipeline, citing accidental gas line explosions elsewhere, like the one that killed eight people and burned down dozens of homes last year in San Bruno, Calif.
Many seem incredulous that such a project could even skirt their upscale neighborhood, where the meatpacking district was recently gentrified, lush green spaces have been added and ground has been broken on a new Whitney Museum of American Art.
“Why would you develop Hudson River Park if you were going to do this?” Christy Robb, who lives on West Fourth Street, asked in an interview.
Spectra points out that the project has undergone several revisions to meet safety concerns and that it now exceeds federal requirements for pipeline safety. “We’re committed to building one of the safest pipelines in the country,” Marylee Henley, a spokeswoman for the company, said.
The federal energy commission has already concluded in an environmental review that any adverse impacts could be reduced “to less than significant” levels and has recommended approval.
Mayor Bloomberg supports the pipeline as a cleaner and greener alternative to dirty heating oil, which thousands of buildings are expected to phase out under tightened city regulations over the next few years. While some will simply switch to a cleaner oil, others are expected eventually to make the transition to natural gas, which creates fewer emissions than oil and is now at historically low prices.
“In terms of cleaning up the city’s energy supply, this is a great investment,” Mr. Bloomberg’s deputy for operations, Caswell F. Holloway, said of the pipeline.
New York City officials call the need for additional natural gas supplies critical, with two other interstate pipelines connecting to the city’s underground distribution grid already operating at or near full capacity.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey expressed “serious concerns” about the pipeline early this year but has not taken a public position on the project, which is expected to create 1,400 new construction jobs but will also pass by some highly populated residential neighborhoods, particularly in Jersey City.
The Spectra pipeline, up to 42 inches in diameter, would cross the Hudson River from Hoboken to the West Village, connecting with Consolidated Edison’s distribution system beneath West Street via the Gansevoort Peninsula. It will range from 6 to 200 feet below ground.
Spectra says the pipeline will be built in segments of 200 feet each. Construction will rip up roads and disrupt traffic for weeks at a time, the company said, but over 60 percent of the pipeline will be laid in areas where industrial infrastructure, like other pipelines and railroad tracks, already exists above and below ground.
The pipeline would transport up to 800 million cubic feet of gas a day. The company says that 20 percent of the gas has already been reserved by Con Edison to meet the demand in New York City and that the rest will be available to the metropolitan region as demand rises.
Gusti Bogok, a West Village neighbor and a member of the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said that natural gas posed dangers, including radon contamination, and that New York should be moving toward renewable energy sources rather than creating more demand for a fossil fuel.
“We need a comprehensive plan with different options — biofuels, energy reduction programs, retrofitting,” she said. “That’s where the effort needs to go.”
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
CBS NEWS SCHEDULES GOP DEBATE FOCUSED ON NATIONAL SECURITY FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2011
CBS NEWS SCHEDULES GOP DEBATE FOCUSING ON NATIONAL SECURITY NOVEMBER 12, 2011
CBS NEWS SCHEDULES GOP DEBATE FOCUSING ON NATIONAL SECURITY NOVEMBER 12, 2011
CBS News and National Journal announced Tuesday they will co-host a GOP presidential debate on Nov. 12.
The debate will focus primarily on national security, according to CBS. The debate will be located in South Carolina and hosted by Wofford College. The debate will be the first to air on broadcast rather than cable television, although only the first hour of the 90 minute debate will air live on CBS, according to the network.
National Journal correspondent Major Garrett and CBS anchor Scott Pelley will act as moderators.
Tuesday’s announcement means a total of three debates are scheduled so far for November. CNBC has scheduled a presidential debate for Nov. 9, while CNN will co-host a Nov. 15 debate focused on foreign policy with conservative think tanks Heritage Foundation and AEI.
By Alicia M. Cohn - 10/25/11
CBS NEWS SCHEDULES GOP DEBATE FOCUSING ON NATIONAL SECURITY NOVEMBER 12, 2011
CBS News and National Journal announced Tuesday they will co-host a GOP presidential debate on Nov. 12.
The debate will focus primarily on national security, according to CBS. The debate will be located in South Carolina and hosted by Wofford College. The debate will be the first to air on broadcast rather than cable television, although only the first hour of the 90 minute debate will air live on CBS, according to the network.
National Journal correspondent Major Garrett and CBS anchor Scott Pelley will act as moderators.
Tuesday’s announcement means a total of three debates are scheduled so far for November. CNBC has scheduled a presidential debate for Nov. 9, while CNN will co-host a Nov. 15 debate focused on foreign policy with conservative think tanks Heritage Foundation and AEI.
By Alicia M. Cohn - 10/25/11
ECONOMIC SECURITY & CONGRESSIONAL INSIDER TRADING! IS IT A CRIME???
WATCH MEG EXPLAIN CONGRESS' PROBLEMS WITH FINANCIAL INTERESTS & THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Interestsan
FINANCIAL INTERESTS & CONGRESS
Oct 26, 2011C-SPAN | Washington Journal
Megan McArdle talked about her Atlantic article, "Capitol Gains," on the possibility of members of Congress engaging in insider trading, and she responded to telephone calls and electronic communications.
This program was part of a "Washington Journal" series highlighting recent magazine articles. This week's article is titled, "Capitol Gains."
+++++
WATCH MEG EXPLAIN CONGRESS' PROBLEMS WITH FINANCIAL INTERESTS & THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Interestsan
+++++
SO, WHO ELSE RECEIVED LOANS BESIDES SOLYNDRA????
Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison just resigned, as the controversy stubbornly refuses to go away. Seems worth revisiting the loans once again, since I've spent a little time looking more deeply at the program over the past few days.
Supporters of these programs claim that they're a necessary part of winning the green future because these are investments that are too risky, or too big, for private capital to take on.
Of course, if the government is going to be a VC, supporters say, they have to expect a high failure rate. There's a lot of talk about the manufacturing "Valley of Death", where startup manufacturing firms may have difficulty getting capital to commercialize their prototypes. According to proponents of this theory, there's plenty of money for early stage ventures, and plenty of bank loans for established firms, but no money for mass commercialization of new manufacturing ideas. (Hence the "valley"). This valley, they say, is especially wide for energy firms, because the capital costs for starting up are so high.
I've been somewhat skeptical of those claims--why are people pouring money into manufacturing startups if they're inevitably doomed to die at the commercialization stage? But say it's true. I thought it was worth looking at who got the money from these programs, and for what. How well is the government doing in its role of VC/valley of death sherpa?
So I went to the DOE's website and manually copied the data on the loan programs. I didn't scrutinize all of the projects--I've already spent more time on this than is probably justified. But I looked at the biggest ones. I put all the number into pretty graphs. And then I thought I'd share those graphs with you, because hell, I have them.
What I'm trying to say is, I just made my first infographic.
I know what you're thinking: "But Megan, infographics are so July 2011!" Yes, it's true: I only adopt trends when they are hoary with age. And I know what else you're thinking: "But Megan, you have the design sensibility of a blind person!" Also pitifully true. In my defense, however, I confined myself to pie charts.
Hell, I can't really defend it. I was in the grip of forces beyond my control. Anyway, here's the breakdown of where the money went:
I thought about adding a breakdown by state, but figured that I'd already subjected you to enough. However, I couldn't help but notice a distinctly heavy Nevada presence, including $343 million for a transmission line that has no obvious "clean" application, except for some vague promises that it could be used to carry clean Nevada energy to California.
Obviously, there's a point to this. That is, I hope that the infographic will be broadly useful to people who support the program: I figure everyone should be interested to know where the money went. (And here's a spreadsheet for those who want to trundle through the data themselves). But I have highlighted what jumped out at me: most of the money has gone to enormous companies that should have no trouble accessing capital. Established utilities, large multinational auto manufacturers, a global warehouse owner. The bulk of these funds are not going to rectify some gap in the capital markets. They're straight subsidies to huge corporations. Even some of the smaller firms/deals are owned by large corporations like Total SA.
Giving large, established companies extra-cheap loans to build power plants, run transmission lines, and fix up the roofs of their warehouses is, in the immortal words of P.J. O'Rourke, like paying a Dairy Queen owner to keep his ice cream freezers on.
This has implications for the default rates. The genuine startups seem to be shaky--it's not just Solyndra, but also Nevada Geothermal and Brightsource. In other words, the firms that actually need the money are likely to experience a far higher default rate than the overall portfolio.
Why does that matter? Because it skews our perceptions of the usefulness of the program. If we loan a bunch of money to firms that could easily get the money elsewhere, and a little bit of money to firms that are very risky, we can claim a high "success" rate even if all the risky firms fail. But we won't have actually added much value, because the government wasn't addressing a genuine market failure. It was just giving Ford and Nissan some extra-cheap money.
But if we're not really filling a gap in the capital market, this is a terrible way to go about subsidizing clean energy. We should be subsidizing the outcome we want: more solar panels installed, more clean vehicles purchased. If the demand is there, companies will be able to go out onto the market and borrow to fill it. It doesn't do us much good to have a bunch of shiny new electric cars--that sit on dealer lots. Or solar panels in the Solyndra warehouse. We should be paying for performance. Otherwise, we're not winning the future. We're just sticking a green smiley face on the same old corporate welfare--and the government's less like a VC than a farmer slopping the pigs at the trough.
+++++
WATCH MEG EXPLAIN CONGRESS' PROBLEMS WITH FINANCIAL INTERESTS & THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Interestsan
+++++
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Interestsan
FINANCIAL INTERESTS & CONGRESS
Oct 26, 2011C-SPAN | Washington Journal
Megan McArdle talked about her Atlantic article, "Capitol Gains," on the possibility of members of Congress engaging in insider trading, and she responded to telephone calls and electronic communications.
This program was part of a "Washington Journal" series highlighting recent magazine articles. This week's article is titled, "Capitol Gains."
+++++
WATCH MEG EXPLAIN CONGRESS' PROBLEMS WITH FINANCIAL INTERESTS & THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Interestsan
+++++
SO, WHO ELSE RECEIVED LOANS BESIDES SOLYNDRA????
Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison just resigned, as the controversy stubbornly refuses to go away. Seems worth revisiting the loans once again, since I've spent a little time looking more deeply at the program over the past few days.
Supporters of these programs claim that they're a necessary part of winning the green future because these are investments that are too risky, or too big, for private capital to take on.
Of course, if the government is going to be a VC, supporters say, they have to expect a high failure rate. There's a lot of talk about the manufacturing "Valley of Death", where startup manufacturing firms may have difficulty getting capital to commercialize their prototypes. According to proponents of this theory, there's plenty of money for early stage ventures, and plenty of bank loans for established firms, but no money for mass commercialization of new manufacturing ideas. (Hence the "valley"). This valley, they say, is especially wide for energy firms, because the capital costs for starting up are so high.
I've been somewhat skeptical of those claims--why are people pouring money into manufacturing startups if they're inevitably doomed to die at the commercialization stage? But say it's true. I thought it was worth looking at who got the money from these programs, and for what. How well is the government doing in its role of VC/valley of death sherpa?
So I went to the DOE's website and manually copied the data on the loan programs. I didn't scrutinize all of the projects--I've already spent more time on this than is probably justified. But I looked at the biggest ones. I put all the number into pretty graphs. And then I thought I'd share those graphs with you, because hell, I have them.
What I'm trying to say is, I just made my first infographic.
I know what you're thinking: "But Megan, infographics are so July 2011!" Yes, it's true: I only adopt trends when they are hoary with age. And I know what else you're thinking: "But Megan, you have the design sensibility of a blind person!" Also pitifully true. In my defense, however, I confined myself to pie charts.
Hell, I can't really defend it. I was in the grip of forces beyond my control. Anyway, here's the breakdown of where the money went:
I thought about adding a breakdown by state, but figured that I'd already subjected you to enough. However, I couldn't help but notice a distinctly heavy Nevada presence, including $343 million for a transmission line that has no obvious "clean" application, except for some vague promises that it could be used to carry clean Nevada energy to California.
Obviously, there's a point to this. That is, I hope that the infographic will be broadly useful to people who support the program: I figure everyone should be interested to know where the money went. (And here's a spreadsheet for those who want to trundle through the data themselves). But I have highlighted what jumped out at me: most of the money has gone to enormous companies that should have no trouble accessing capital. Established utilities, large multinational auto manufacturers, a global warehouse owner. The bulk of these funds are not going to rectify some gap in the capital markets. They're straight subsidies to huge corporations. Even some of the smaller firms/deals are owned by large corporations like Total SA.
Giving large, established companies extra-cheap loans to build power plants, run transmission lines, and fix up the roofs of their warehouses is, in the immortal words of P.J. O'Rourke, like paying a Dairy Queen owner to keep his ice cream freezers on.
This has implications for the default rates. The genuine startups seem to be shaky--it's not just Solyndra, but also Nevada Geothermal and Brightsource. In other words, the firms that actually need the money are likely to experience a far higher default rate than the overall portfolio.
Why does that matter? Because it skews our perceptions of the usefulness of the program. If we loan a bunch of money to firms that could easily get the money elsewhere, and a little bit of money to firms that are very risky, we can claim a high "success" rate even if all the risky firms fail. But we won't have actually added much value, because the government wasn't addressing a genuine market failure. It was just giving Ford and Nissan some extra-cheap money.
But if we're not really filling a gap in the capital market, this is a terrible way to go about subsidizing clean energy. We should be subsidizing the outcome we want: more solar panels installed, more clean vehicles purchased. If the demand is there, companies will be able to go out onto the market and borrow to fill it. It doesn't do us much good to have a bunch of shiny new electric cars--that sit on dealer lots. Or solar panels in the Solyndra warehouse. We should be paying for performance. Otherwise, we're not winning the future. We're just sticking a green smiley face on the same old corporate welfare--and the government's less like a VC than a farmer slopping the pigs at the trough.
+++++
WATCH MEG EXPLAIN CONGRESS' PROBLEMS WITH FINANCIAL INTERESTS & THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Interestsan
+++++
"SUPER" CONGRESSIONAL SECRETS OPERATIONAL COMMITTEE REVEALS HOUSE GOP ALSO BELIEVES IN SOCIALIZED GOVERNMENT "&" FOREIGN CREATION OF JOBS!
GOP PITCHES TRANSPORTATION BILL AS JOBS PROGRAM!
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are pitching a six-year transportation construction plan as a major jobs bill that can win bipartisan approval before next year's election, a key GOP lawmaker said Monday.
Even while prospects for enacting President Barack Obama's jobs plan have dimmed, Republican backing has grown for a long-term transportation bill to boost employment. Transportation and road-building industries, especially the beleaguered construction industry, are also pressuring lawmakers to make a multi-year commitment of federal funds. Without that, states and private investors will have trouble financing large infrastructure projects.
The most significant obstacle to passing the bill was eliminated when GOP leaders recently agreed to keep spending on highway programs at current levels even though gas tax revenues are declining, said Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The GOP bill would spend about $285 billion over the six years, but would spur far greater investment in roads, bridges, and transit systems through federal loans and loan guarantees, Mica said at a media briefing.
"This is what we hope will be the core of not just a Republican, but a congressional jobs effort," Mica, R-Fla., told reporters.
Still unclear is where Republicans will find the funds to make up as much as a $100 billion shortfall between gas tax and other transportation tax revenues and what they are proposing to spend. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, suggested last month that royalties from expanding oil and gas development might be one way to find the money, but any proposal along those lines is likely to draw strong opposition from Democrats on environmental grounds.
GOP leaders are exploring a variety of possible funding sources, Mica said.
"We haven't come up with a solution, but we will find a way to fund at least current (spending) levels," he said.
He said his target for passing the bill is March 31, when current authority for highway programs expires.
Last month, Obama announced a $447 billion jobs plan that included new spending on infrastructure, education and aid to state and local governments paid for in part by tax increases on the wealthy. His plan includes $50 billion to immediately put Americans to work building roads, bridges, airport runways and other projects. But efforts to pass the full measure were blocked by Senate Republicans, who see the president's proposal as a second economic stimulus.
That's left Obama and his Democratic allies pushing lawmakers to pass the bill in individual pieces, an uncertain prospect at best.
Historically, highway programs — and, since the 1980s, transit programs as well — have been paid for primarily by gas and diesel taxes that go into a federal trust fund. Every five or six years Congress has passed a long-term plan for spending those funds.
But the last long-term transportation plan expired more than two years ago. Congressional efforts to pass a new plan stalled primarily because lawmakers have been unable to agree on how to pay for the program in the face of declining gas tax revenues. Boosting the gas tax is politically unpalatable to both parties.
Meanwhile, Congress has kept highway and transit programs going through a series of eight short-term extensions.
Earlier this year, House GOP leaders were adamant that any transportation bill be paid for entirely through trust fund revenues to prevent increasing the federal deficit. That would have required cutting spending by about a third.
Since then, "I think everyone came to the understanding we need more money in transportation," Mica said.
Mica's Senate counterpart, Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has proposed a two-year, $109 billion transportation bill. She and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., have been struggling to find an extra $12 billion to meet lawmakers' demands that the bill be fully paid for.
Committee action on the Senate bill is scheduled for early November.
Boxer said she was pleased House Republicans have given up demands that transportation spending be cut by a third.
"Their support for higher funding levels is a very positive thing," Boxer said in an email. "I am confident that (the Senate) will pass a two-year bill which would be fully paid for, and I am very open to a six-year bill as long as it is fully paid for in a way that has bipartisan support and does not cut jobs elsewhere in the economy to pay for transportation."
Mica rejected Obama's proposal to create a $10 billion "infrastructure bank" to spur private sector investment in transportation and other projects of national or regional significance. He said it would take too long and cost too much to set up the bank. Republicans have also said they fear a bank might be vulnerable to political considerations when choosing which projects to fund.
However, both Mica and Boxer are proposing to increase an existing federal program that provides loans and loan guarantees for major transportation projects. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program currently spends about $120 million a year; both lawmakers would boost its funding to $1 billion annually.
"There's not that much that separates us on this," Mica said.
Follow Joan Lowy at http://twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy
U.S. CONGRESS SUBVERTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLES' EMINENT DOMAIN, LAND & PROPERTY RIGHTS -V- UPHOLDING THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION!
HOUSE TO VOTE ON LAND SWAP TO BOOST HUGE ARIZONA COPPER MINE, DESPITE OBAMA'S OPPOSITION!
-the Associated Press
Wednesday, October 26, 2:10 AM
WASHINGTON — House Republicans and the Obama administration are at odds over a GOP bill aimed at boosting a proposed Arizona copper mine that would be the largest in North America.
GOP lawmakers and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association, say the project would pump billions of dollars into the Arizona economy and help create nearly 4,000 mining-related jobs.
They are pushing a bill, up for a House vote Wednesday, that would approve a land exchange to clear the way for the mining project 70 miles southeast of Phoenix.
Under the plan, first proposed in 2005, about 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Arizona would be transferred to federal control, including 3,000 acres on the lower San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona and 940 acres to be added to the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch southeast of Tucson. The land is controlled by Resolution Copper Co., a subsidiary of the giant global mining company Rio Tinto.
The Obama administration opposes the land swap, saying an environmental review should be completed before the exchange is made.
A review after the swap is completed would limit U.S. control over the project and make it harder to propose alternatives that could limit environmental damage, said Mary Wagner, associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
The $6 billion mining project near Superior, Ariz., is believed to be the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world and the largest in North America. The company says the project would create at least 1,400 jobs on site and more than 3,700 related jobs.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., the bill’s sponsor, said there was no need for a full environmental review until after the swap is completed.
“It’s just a land swap. It does not pre-empt anything like the Antiquities Act,” the National Environmental Policy Act or other laws, he said.
Once the exchange is completed, “all the applicable laws follow,” Gosar said.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the environmental review should be conducted now, when the U.S. government has the most leverage over the project. Once land that now is part of the Tonto National Forest is turned over to private control, “our ability to require (changes) and enforce the law is really limited at best,” he said.
Grijalva and other Democrats also complained that under current law, the mining company will not have to pay any royalties to the U.S. government for mineral rights that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.
Grijalva called the mining proposal one of the most significant issues Congress has faced this year.
“A foreign-owned company doing business on U.S. public lands is basically getting a blank check on extraction (of copper) and a green light from Congress to go ahead and begin this without any return on the money,” he said.
Jon Cherry, a vice president of Resolution Copper, said in a statement that he is optimistic the House will approve the land exchange. Over the life of the project, the mine could generate as much as $61 billion in economic benefit for Arizona “without the need for one dollar of federal stimulus,” Cherry said.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-the Associated Press
Wednesday, October 26, 2:10 AM
WASHINGTON — House Republicans and the Obama administration are at odds over a GOP bill aimed at boosting a proposed Arizona copper mine that would be the largest in North America.
GOP lawmakers and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association, say the project would pump billions of dollars into the Arizona economy and help create nearly 4,000 mining-related jobs.
They are pushing a bill, up for a House vote Wednesday, that would approve a land exchange to clear the way for the mining project 70 miles southeast of Phoenix.
Under the plan, first proposed in 2005, about 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Arizona would be transferred to federal control, including 3,000 acres on the lower San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona and 940 acres to be added to the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch southeast of Tucson. The land is controlled by Resolution Copper Co., a subsidiary of the giant global mining company Rio Tinto.
The Obama administration opposes the land swap, saying an environmental review should be completed before the exchange is made.
A review after the swap is completed would limit U.S. control over the project and make it harder to propose alternatives that could limit environmental damage, said Mary Wagner, associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
The $6 billion mining project near Superior, Ariz., is believed to be the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world and the largest in North America. The company says the project would create at least 1,400 jobs on site and more than 3,700 related jobs.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., the bill’s sponsor, said there was no need for a full environmental review until after the swap is completed.
“It’s just a land swap. It does not pre-empt anything like the Antiquities Act,” the National Environmental Policy Act or other laws, he said.
Once the exchange is completed, “all the applicable laws follow,” Gosar said.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the environmental review should be conducted now, when the U.S. government has the most leverage over the project. Once land that now is part of the Tonto National Forest is turned over to private control, “our ability to require (changes) and enforce the law is really limited at best,” he said.
Grijalva and other Democrats also complained that under current law, the mining company will not have to pay any royalties to the U.S. government for mineral rights that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.
Grijalva called the mining proposal one of the most significant issues Congress has faced this year.
“A foreign-owned company doing business on U.S. public lands is basically getting a blank check on extraction (of copper) and a green light from Congress to go ahead and begin this without any return on the money,” he said.
Jon Cherry, a vice president of Resolution Copper, said in a statement that he is optimistic the House will approve the land exchange. Over the life of the project, the mine could generate as much as $61 billion in economic benefit for Arizona “without the need for one dollar of federal stimulus,” Cherry said.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FOCUSING ON COMBATING "TRANSPORTATION" HIGH-SEA PIRACY IN THE PUERTO RICAN, HAITI, CUBAN TRIANGLE!
http://volvooceanracemiami.org/
http://volvooceanracemiami.org/
Hearing to Focus on Economic Importance of Seaports
October 24, 2011
Washington, DC – A Congressional hearing on Wednesday will focus on the importance of the nation’s maritime trade system and the economic, environmental and global benefits of waterborne shipping.
Maritime shipping remains the preferred method of moving goods in the international market throughout the world. The benefits of waterborne trade are derived from its resource efficiency, and waterborne shipping is an integral part of a fully utilized freight transportation network. Nearly a third of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is derived from international trade, the bulk of which is waterborne.
Investing in ports not only creates jobs during the construction period, but supports wider and long lasting economic and employment opportunities. Knowing the value of maritime trade, localities and port authorities have invested in the infrastructure of their ports.
The operation and maintenance of shipping channels is paid for by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which is funded from an ad valorum tax levied on cargo imports at American ports. The HMTF is a user fee that grows based on the value of cargo coming to ports. These monies pay for the necessary dredging that keeps navigation channels open for business. In fiscal year 2010, the HMTF grew by $1.3 billion; however, only $828,550,000 was spent in total operations of the fund as the balance was diverted to deficit spending. Because of this inequitable allocation, many of the country’s most valuable navigation channels are under maintained, reducing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of maritime trade.
More information about Wednesday’s hearing can be found here.
WHAT: Hearing of the U.S. House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Chairman:
“The Economic Importance of Seaports: Is the United States Prepared for 21st Century Trade Realities?”
WHEN: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 26, 2011
WHERE: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
A live webcast of this hearing will be available at http://transportation.house.gov
WITNESSES:
• The Honorable Jo Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army-Civil Works, United States Department of the Army
• Jerry Bridges, Chairman of the Board, American Association of Port Authorities
• Christopher Koch, President, World Shipping Council
• Paul Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Port Authority
• Omar Benjamin, Executive Director, Port of Oakland
• William Friedman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority
• Mr. Peter Peyton, President, ILWU Marine Clerks Association
# # #
http://volvooceanracemiami.org/
Hearing to Focus on Economic Importance of Seaports
October 24, 2011
Washington, DC – A Congressional hearing on Wednesday will focus on the importance of the nation’s maritime trade system and the economic, environmental and global benefits of waterborne shipping.
Maritime shipping remains the preferred method of moving goods in the international market throughout the world. The benefits of waterborne trade are derived from its resource efficiency, and waterborne shipping is an integral part of a fully utilized freight transportation network. Nearly a third of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is derived from international trade, the bulk of which is waterborne.
Investing in ports not only creates jobs during the construction period, but supports wider and long lasting economic and employment opportunities. Knowing the value of maritime trade, localities and port authorities have invested in the infrastructure of their ports.
The operation and maintenance of shipping channels is paid for by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which is funded from an ad valorum tax levied on cargo imports at American ports. The HMTF is a user fee that grows based on the value of cargo coming to ports. These monies pay for the necessary dredging that keeps navigation channels open for business. In fiscal year 2010, the HMTF grew by $1.3 billion; however, only $828,550,000 was spent in total operations of the fund as the balance was diverted to deficit spending. Because of this inequitable allocation, many of the country’s most valuable navigation channels are under maintained, reducing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of maritime trade.
More information about Wednesday’s hearing can be found here.
WHAT: Hearing of the U.S. House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Chairman:
“The Economic Importance of Seaports: Is the United States Prepared for 21st Century Trade Realities?”
WHEN: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 26, 2011
WHERE: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
A live webcast of this hearing will be available at http://transportation.house.gov
WITNESSES:
• The Honorable Jo Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army-Civil Works, United States Department of the Army
• Jerry Bridges, Chairman of the Board, American Association of Port Authorities
• Christopher Koch, President, World Shipping Council
• Paul Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Port Authority
• Omar Benjamin, Executive Director, Port of Oakland
• William Friedman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority
• Mr. Peter Peyton, President, ILWU Marine Clerks Association
# # #
A.G. HOLDER IMPRISONS U.S. BORDER AGENT FOR "VIOLATING RIGHTS" OF ILLEGAL CRIMINAL NARCO-HUMAN TRAFFICKER!
OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SENDS BORDER AGENT TO PRISON FOR "VIOLATING RIGHTS" OF NARCO-HUMAN TRAFFICKER!
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall
After a complaint from the Mexican government, a U.S. Border Patrol agent has been sentenced to two years in prison for "violating" the constitutional rights of a 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect by not "lifting his arms properly." The Obama Justice Department has accused the agent of using "unnecessary force," in handling the suspect while handcuffed. From the Washington Times:
Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr. was named in a November 2009 federal grand jury indictment with deprivation of rights under color of law during an October 2008 arrest near the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, in response to a report that illegal immigrants had crossed the river with bundles of drugs.
In a prosecution sought by the Mexican government and obtained after the suspected smuggler was given immunity to testify against the agent, Diaz was sentenced last week by U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum in San Antonio. The Mexican consulate in Eagle Pass had filed a formal written complaint just hours after the arrest, alleging that the teenager had been beaten.
Defense attorneys argued that there were no injuries or bruises on the suspected smuggler’s lower arms where the handcuffs had been placed nor any bruising resulting from an alleged knee on his back. Photos showed the only marks on his body came from the straps of the pack he carried containing the suspected drugs, they said.
The defense claimed that the smuggling suspect was handcuffed because he was uncooperative and resisted arrest, and that the agent had lifted his arms to force him to the ground - a near-universal police technique - while the other agents looked for the drugs.
The allegations against Diaz, 31, a seven-year veteran of the Border Patrol, initially were investigated by Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Professional Responsibility, which cleared the agent of any wrongdoing.
Despite being cleared of any wrong doing by the I.C.E. Office of Professional Responsibility and the DHS Inspector General, the Obama Justice Department went forward with prosecution against Diaz. Considering the Obama Justice Department is full of former ACLU lawyers, this situation is extremely disappointing but not surprising. After all, this is the same Justice Department that wanted to prosecute Navy SEALS for "punching terrorists in the stomach," prosecute CIA agents who conducted water boarding and the same department headed by Attorney General Eric Holder who thinks terrorists deserve the same rights as law abiding American citizens.
The Obama Justice Department has made it clear they are more concerned with fulfilling the interests of foreign countries, in this case Mexico, than protecting American citizens. In addition, the Obama Justice Department has made it clear they have no respect for our Border Patrol agents in light of Operation Fast and Furious, the lethal operation that resulted in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Terry's family still hasn't received an apology from the Justice Department for their role in the operation.
REP. GRIJALVA PRESSES MINING, OIL COMPANIES FOR RESOURCE DATA --- AS THE "CAN" TURNS DOWN THE PIPELINE!
Grijalva presses mining, oil companies for resource data
By Ben Geman - 10/26/11 05:41 AM ET
A prominent liberal Democrat is pressing some of the world’s biggest oil and mining companies for detailed data on the value of resources they recently extracted from federal lands and how much they’re paying the government.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) – who argues the public is not getting a “fair return” on natural resource development – is sending letters Wednesday to over a dozen oil, coal and hardrock mining companies, including Exxon Mobil, Rio Tinto, Shell Oil, Peabody Energy and others.
The letter to coal giant Peabody, for instance, asks for fiscal 2010 data on the value of coal extracted, detailed information on leasing expenses and royalties, and the “total projected value” of extractive activities on property leased from the U.S. government.
Grijalva is co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and is also the ranking Democrat on the public lands subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee.
“This information will help my Committee, and Congress as a whole, determine whether our federal lands are currently being put to the best use,” the letters state. “Taxpayers rightly demand the maximum financial benefit from publicly owned property and commodities, and in this tough economy we need accurate information to make the best financial decisions for our nation.”
Grijalva and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) also recently asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for a study of the value of resources extracted from federal lands and the revenues collected. GAO has agreed to do the study, according to Grijalva’s office.
Grijalva, in announcing the GAO request last month, took aim in particular at “antiquated” mining laws that enable royalty-free hardrock mineral production on federal lands.
More broadly, he said last month that a closer look at energy and mining revenues is needed.
“When we are talking about radical cuts and reductions in Medicare, Social Security, domestic investments in education, because there is not enough revenue that is coming into the government, here we have public lands and the outer continental shelf owned by the American people in which significant economic activity is going on, we are asking a simple question: How much activity is going on, and what is the return on the dollar,” he said.
Many Democrats and the Obama administration have called for policy changes including imposition of hardrock mining royalties, scaling back royalty waivers allowed for some deepwater oil-and-gas production, and other measures aimed at increasing energy and mineral extraction revenues.
The U.S. collects about $10 billion annually in revenues from oil-and-gas and mining projects on public lands and in public waters offshore.
+++++++++
Report: Keystone pipeline decision timeline might slip
By Ben Geman - 10/26/11 09:50 AM ET
The Obama administration’s year-end target to decide whether to approve the controversial Keystone XL oil sands pipeline might slip, according to a news report.
Reuters, citing an unnamed Obama administration official, reported on the possibility Tuesday. From the piece:
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the State Department still hoped to make a decision by the end of this year, which has been its target, but that its highest priority was to carry out a thorough, rigorous review. The decision has already been pushed back once.
The Obama administration is under competing pressures as it weighs TransCanada Corp.’s proposal to build a 1,700-mile pipeline that would carry crude from Alberta’s oil sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.
Major business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are pushing hard for the project, calling it a job-creating way to boost U.S. energy security.
But environmental groups are vigorously and publicly pressing the White House to scuttle it, citing concerns about greenhouse gases and potential spills along the route, among other criticisms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
