A GLOWING REPORT ON RADIATION

March 16, 2011


With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.

This only seems counter intuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.

As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms."

Among the studies mentioned by the Times was one in Canada finding that tuberculosis patients subjected to multiple chest X-rays had much lower rates of breast cancer than the general population.

And there are lots more!

A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health on 700,000 shipyard workers, some of whom had been exposed to 10 times more radiation than the others from their work on the ships' nuclear reactors. The workers exposed to excess radiation had a 24 percent lower death rate and a 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the non-irradiated workers.

Isn't that just incredible? I mean, that the Department of Energy spent $10 million doing something useful? Amazing, right?

In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally constructed with massive amounts of cobalt 60, a radioactive substance. After 16 years, the buildings' 10,000 occupants developed only five cases of cancer. The cancer rate for the same age group in the general Taiwanese population over that time period predicted 170 cancers.

The people in those buildings had been exposed to radiation nearly five times the maximum "safe" level according to the U.S. government. But they ended up with a cancer rate 96 percent lower than the general population.

Bernard L. Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, compared radon exposure and lung cancer rates in 1,729 counties covering 90 percent of the U.S. population. His study in the 1990s found far fewer cases of lung cancer in those counties with the highest amounts of radon -- a correlation that could not be explained by smoking rates.

Tom Bethell, author of the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science has been writing for years about the beneficial effects of some radiation, or "hormesis." A few years ago, he reported on a group of scientists who concluded their conference on hormesis at the University of Massachusetts by repairing to a spa in Boulder, Mont., specifically in order to expose themselves to excess radiation.

At the Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine in Boulder, people pay $5 to descend 85 feet into an old mining pit to be irradiated with more than 400 times the EPA-recommended level of radon. In the summer, 50 people a day visit the mine hoping for relief from chronic pain and autoimmune disorders.

Amazingly, even the Soviet-engineered disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 can be directly blamed for the deaths of no more than the 31 people inside the plant who died in the explosion. Although news reports generally claimed a few thousand people died as a result of Chernobyl -- far fewer than the tens of thousands initially predicted -- that hasn't been confirmed by studies.

Indeed, after endless investigations, including by the United Nations, Manhattan Project veteran Theodore Rockwell summarized the reports to Bethell in 2002, saying, "They have not yet reported any deaths outside of the 30 who died in the plant."

Even the thyroid cancers in people who lived near the reactor were attributed to low iodine in the Russian diet -- and consequently had no effect on the cancer rate.

Meanwhile, the animals around the Chernobyl reactor, who were not evacuated, are "thriving," according to scientists quoted in the April 28, 2002 Sunday Times (UK).

Dr. Dade W. Moeller, a radiation expert and professor emeritus at Harvard, told The New York Times that it's been hard to find excess cancers even from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, particularly because one-third of the population will get cancer anyway. There were about 90,000 survivors of the atomic bombs in 1945 and, more than 50 years later, half of them were still alive. (Other scientists say there were 700 excess cancer deaths among the 90,000.)

Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so. But Jenny McCarthy's vaccine theories get more press than Harvard physics professors' studies on the potential benefits of radiation. (And they say conservatives are anti-science!)

I guess good radiation stories are not as exciting as news anchors warning of mutant humans and scary nuclear power plants -- news anchors who, by the way, have injected small amounts of poison into their foreheads to stave off wrinkles. Which is to say: The general theory that small amounts of toxins can be healthy is widely accepted --except in the case of radiation.

Every day Americans pop multivitamins containing trace amount of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron -- all poisons.

They get flu shots. They'll drink copious amounts of coffee to ingest a poison: caffeine. (Back in the '70s, Professor Cohen offered to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine -- an offer Nader never accepted.)

But in the case of radiation, the media have Americans convinced that the minutest amount is always deadly.

Although reporters love to issue sensationalized reports about the danger from Japan's nuclear reactors, remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

'Radiation is good for you,' says Ann Coulter as she weighs in on Japan's nuclear crisis

By David Gardner
Last updated at 9:35 PM on 18th March 2011

Conservative maverick Ann Coulter has poured scorn on growing fears over the fallout from Japan’s nuclear crisis by claiming that ‘radiation is good for you.’

With her bizarre outburst, Coulter became the latest celebrity to cause a stir over controversial remarks on the disaster in Japan.

The right wing commentator was attempting to quell concern that a radiation plume was due to hit America’s West Coast today after travelling 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean from the damaged reactor at Fukishima.
Scroll down for video

Gaffe: Ann Coulter was attempting to quell concern that a radiation plume was due to hit America's West Coast today in a Fox News interview

‘There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts we should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer,’ she told Fox News TV host Bill O’Reilly.

Coulter pointed to articles in the New York Times and The Times of London to back up her argument.

‘So we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor leaking and kind of sunbathing,’ joked O’Reilly.

Coulter was speaking after writing a column on her website titled, ‘A Glowing Report on Radiation.’

Controversial: Coulter told host Bill O'Reilly, there was a growing body of evidence that a certain amount of radiation was actually good for the body and reduced cases of cancer

She quotes a string of doctors to back her argument and writes: ‘With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.

‘This only seems counter-intuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad.

'There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.

‘Every day Americans pop multivitamins containing trace amount of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron - all poisons.

‘They get flu shots. They'll drink copious amounts of coffee to ingest a poison: caffeine. (Back in the '70s, Professor Cohen offered to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine - an offer Nader never accepted.)

‘But in the case of radiation, the media have Americans convinced that the minutest amount is always deadly.’

More than 150,000 people have been evacuated from the danger zone around the damaged Japanese reactor and the U.S. has advised citizens to evacuate from a 50-mile radius of the site.

‘You have to be responsible,’ said O’Reilly.

‘The prevailing wisdom is there is a level of radiation that's going to hurt you and perhaps kill you.

'All you have to do is look at what happened here in New York City on 9/11.

‘The people exposed just to the debris coming from the collapsed towers are having a myriad of health problems. All right? Health problems all day long.

'And there is variety of them. So you have to err on the side of caution.

‘What you say may be true. There may be some doses of radiation in the human body can ward off infection.

'But in something like this, you have to get the folks out of there and you have to report worse case scenarios. You have to,’ he added.

He also pointed to the wartime U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation can kill.

The latest controversy came after a string of insensitive celebrity gaffes in the wake of the disaster.

Comedian Gilbert Gottfried was fired by insurance company Aflac for Tweeting: ‘Japan is really advanced. They don't go to the beach. The beach comes to them.’

Rapper 50 Cent was blasted for a Tweet after writing: ‘Wave will hit 8am them crazy white boys gonna try to go surfing," he wrote. "Look this is very serious people I had to evacuate all my hoes from LA, Hawaii and Japan. I had to do it. Lol."

CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow was also in hot water after stating he was grateful the human toll was far worse than the economic cost of the crisis.

Uploaded by PopModal on Mar 18, 2011

This video can be seen http://www.popmodal.com/ March 17, 2011 - "With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer." read full article: http://www.anncoulter.com/

How to cut the deficit by doing nothing

Posted at 06:08 PM ET, 03/18/2011

By Ezra Klein

There are two major takeaways from the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the president’s proposed 2012 budget. The first is that the CBO doesn’t believe it will save as much money as the White House says it will. The second is that doing nothing — yes, nothing — would do more to cut the deficit than anything that the Obama White House proposed or than the GOP is likely to propose.

On the question of the president’s budget itself, CBO projects that public debt would increase to 87 percent of GDP over the next 10 years. The Obama administration’s projections put that at 77 percent. The difference appears to be that the CBO is more pessimistic about the economic outlook over the next decade — a pessimism that matters enormously for deficit projections.

Who’s right? Well, predictions are hard. As Jon Chait details, there was a similar dispute in the 1990s where the Clinton White House was using more optimistic projections than the CBO — and the Clinton White House not only proved closer than the CBO, but even their relatively optimistic projection proved overly pessimistic. This time, of course, things might not turn out as rosy. But that’s a guessing game. What’s not a guessing game is that the Obama budget increases the deficit versus a policy of doing nothing, as a policy of doing nothing means that all the Bush tax cuts expire in full while the Obama budget keeps all of them, aside from the tax cuts for the rich.

The difference in revenues is pretty clear on that graph. But if you’re wondering why Obama’s budget leads to a slight bump in spending, too, it turns out that that’s also a revenues issue: “Outlays would be greater under the President’s budget than in CBO’s baseline in each of the next 10 years, primarily because the proposed reduction in revenues would boost deficits and thus the costs of paying interest on the additional debt that would accumulate.”

My prediction, incidentally, is that this will hold true — perhaps even more true — for the Republican budget, which also won’t repeal the Bush tax cuts. Which will mean that over the next 10 years, both the Republican and Democratic budgets will be worse for the deficit than inaction because neither the Republican nor Democratic budgets will call for the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which is what’s written into law law — and thus the CBO’s baseline — right now.

OVERSIGHT DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LANDMARK OPEN GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
C O M M I T T E E  O N  O V E R S I G H T  A N D  G O V E R N M E N T  R E F O RM
2 1 5 7 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D C 2 0 5 1 5 - 6 1 43

 

This is Sunshine Week, our nation's observance of the importance of open and
transparent government. This week also marks the 260th anniversary of James Madison's birth.
He was a champion of the public's right to know and a strong defender of open government. In
1822, James Madison said this:

"A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a
prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern
ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with
the power knowledge gives."

So it is fitting today that our Committee is holding a hearing on one of the pillars of open
government - the Freedom of Information Act - which helps ensure that the public has the
information and knowledge that Madison described so powerfully.

 

 

Ranking Member urges Speaker Boehner to schedule swift floor vote.

(Washington, DC)—Today, Congressman Elijah E. Cummings (MD-07), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was joined by all Democratic Members of the Committee in introducing H.R. 1144, the “Transparency and Openness in Government Act” to strengthen the nation’s core open government laws.

“The American people deserve a government that is open, transparent and accountable,” said Cummings. “The measures in this bill are simple, bipartisan, and common-sense ways for the American people to have more oversight of their government.”

The Transparency and Openness in Government Act includes five bills that passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly during the 111th Congress.

“Making it easier for our constituents to hold government accountable should be a bipartisan goal,” continued Cummings. “I know my friend Chairman Issa, who voted for these measures last year, along with many other Republicans, support the transparency created by these laws.

“I hope Chairman Issa will mark up this bill quickly, urge Speaker Boehner to get it to the House floor swiftly and join me in urging the Senate to pass it and send it to the President’s desk this year.”

The measures include:

• Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments, requiring agencies to disclose more information about advisory committees and closes existing loopholes (passed the House on July 26, 2010, by a vote of 250 to 124).

• Presidential Records Act Amendments, increasing public access to presidential records by establishing statutory procedures prior to FOIA releases (passed the House on January 7, 2009, by a vote of 359 to 58).

• Presidential Libraries Donation Reform Act, requiring greater public disclosure of library donor information (passed the House on January 7, 2009, by a vote of 388 to 31).

• Electronic Message Preservation Act, modernizing the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act to ensure that White House and agency email records are preserved (passed the House on March 17, 2010, by voice vote).

• GAO Improvement Act, strengthening the authority of the Government Accountability Office to access agency records (passed the House on January 13, 2010, by voice vote).

DOCUMENTS FOR THE MARCH 17TH FULL COMMITTEE HEARING: "THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT"

Documents for the March 17th Full Committee Hearing: "The Freedom of Information Act: Crowdsourcing Government Oversight" Read Ranking Member Cummings' Opening Statement. Read the testimony of Angela Canterbury, Director of Public Policy, Project on Open Government Oversight Read the testimony of Miriam Nisbet, Director, Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration Read the testimony of Daniel Metcalfe, Executive Director, Collaboration on Government Secrecy and Retired Founding Director, Office of Information and Privacy, Department of Justice Read the testimony of Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch Read the testimony of Rick Blum, Coordinator, Sunshine in Government

Cantor and Coburn Announce Coordinating House

-Senate Effort to Respond to GAO Report

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) today announced bicameral, bipartisan efforts to directly respond to the recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showing that billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on overlapping and duplicative government programs. Leader Cantor and Senator Coburn have been working together on how Congress goes about implementing solutions that eliminate duplicative programs and reduce wasteful spending.
Leader Cantor stated, “At a time when we continue to borrow nearly 40 cents of each dollar we spend, we must ensure that each dollar is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Partnering with Senator Coburn and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, these bipartisan, bicameral efforts will directly address the extremely concerning GAO report that identified billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is going to waste on duplicative and overlapping federal programs. On the House side, I have asked each Committee Chairman to look at the recommendations specific to their committee and report on what can be done in response to this report. But that alone isn’t sufficient.
Cantor continued, “In the past, conflicting committee jurisdictions have made it extremely difficult to eliminate the duplication identified by GAO and achieve efficiencies for taxpayers. In the coming days we will be working to set up a process so that members from the various affected committees can work together to propose crosscutting solutions, focusing on at least three specific areas that we can address most quickly. Families and businesses throughout the country have tightened their belts and are doing more with less and they deserve a government that spends their money like they do.”
“I applaud Leader Cantor for his leadership in this effort. The way to restore fiscal sanity in Washington is a billion dollars at a time. This report shows Congress could spend the rest of the year going program by program and produce massive savings while improving the quality of services across the government. I have already introduced legislation based on these findings and will introduce more bills and amendments throughout the year. The federal government is on an unsustainable course. If we don’t make these choices ourselves the rest of the world will force us to make hard choices. Implementing these recommendations should be the easy part,” Dr. Coburn said.

Libya: Obama Crafts the Anti-Bush Doctrine

Flickr: Pete Souza/White House
As he announces the US is prepared to use military force to stop Qaddafi, the president exorcises the ghost of George W. Bush.

By David Corn | Fri Mar. 18, 2011 1:47 PM PDT

---

A ghost hung over President Barack Obama as he stood at a podium in the East Room of the White House on Friday afternoon to talk about Libya: the ghost of George W. Bush.
As Obama discussed the UN Security Council's resolution authorizing the use of force, including a no-fly zone, to block Muammar Qaddafi from waging further war against the opposition, the president's remarks about the Libyan autocrat echoed Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein prior to the US invasion of Iraq—absent references to WMDs. Qaddafi, the president said, was engaged in "brutal suppression." He has "demonstrated a willingness to use brute force" for decades. "Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people." He was thwarting the will of "the international community." He had a stark choice: submit to the UN resolution or face a military response. "These terms are not negotiable."

Threatening the use of force against a brutal tyrant, in the name of democracy and human rights, to advance US national security interests and cloaking it in the flag of the United Nations and regional stability—it does sound familiar. But Obama in the second half of his remarks departed from the Bush-like script:

In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone—it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together.

That is, we're not cowboys. This will be, Obama suggested, true multilateralism—one including Arab nations. His administration and the governments of France and Britain had quickly guided a forceful resolution through the Security Council (with China and Russia abstaining), and the United States, Obama noted, would be "enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone." US leadership, yet European and Arab action.  He added, "The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya."
Noting that "our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League" will take a lead role in enforcing the resolution, Obama declared, "This is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law." That is precisely the opposite of how the neocons of the Bush-Cheney crowd viewed the world. They were not interested in tying their strategic desires to international law or in developing a global order in which the United States would not be the top-dog decider and enforcer.
Obama went further to distance himself from his predecessor:

I want to be clear: the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.

That was not the operating premise of the Iraq war.
Much still needs to be determined by Obama regarding the military actions the United States will take in this multilateral confrontation with Qaddafi—which may turn into his first non-inherited war. Can a no-fly zone work at this point? Is it possible to protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi's wrath—the raison d'être of the UN resolution—without placing boots on the ground? The challenge at hand may be more akin to Rwanda than Iraq. But that doesn't make it easier or potentially less dangerous. And working with a true coalition—one that includes European and Arab partners each highly sensitive to their own interests—will be tough. (While Saudi fighter jets are patrolling the skies of Libya to protect pro-democracy Libyans, how will the Obama administration handle questions about the lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia?)
Yet the president, with this brief set of remarks, has crafted something of an Obama Doctrine for military intervention: The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation. In short, the Anti-Bush Doctrine.

Democrats wonder: What's our plan?

Steny Hoyer voted 'yes' on the latest stopgap bill; Nancy Pelosi voted 'no.' | John Shinkle/POLITICO By: Jonathan Allen March 17, 2011 04:39 AM EDT

Democrats in Congress are grappling with a question as they negotiate a spending deal: Who's in charge? The top two Democratic leaders in the House have twice split on whether to approve short-term government funding bills that cut billions from federal accounts. Senate Democrats haven’t put forward a long-term spending plan that can move through their chamber, and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol say they have no idea where the White House stands or who’s running the show. The result is a rank and file that is confused about its direction and unhappy with the leadership — or lack of it — on when to go along with the Republican-controlled House on budget matters and when to stand and fight. “The sum and substance of our strategy can’t be waiting for the other side to [mess] up,” Rep.Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) told bloggers Wednesday. But for many Democrats, that’s exactly what their leaders’ short-term strategy amounts to. In a follow-up interview with POLITICO, the Brooklyn liberal said if there is a more elegant Democratic plan, “it’s such a Jedi mind-meld going on that it hasn’t filtered down to my level.” On Tuesday, Democratic disarray allowed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to push through a three-week spending bill cutting $6 billion from federal programs despite 54 of his own members breaking ranks. Democrats missed an opportunity to either leverage their votes for concessions or simply sink Boehner’s bill and show more clearly the depth of his problem with the right wing of his caucus. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and 103 of her colleagues voted no, while Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and 84 other Democrats voted yes. The numbers were the exact reverse of the last short-term spending bill. Boehner’s inability to control his majority caucus helped obscure the divisions on the Democratic side — but they are real and they are deep. Some want to cut and cut now. Others say the failure to articulate a coherent anti-Republican message prevents Democrats from drawing sharp distinctions for voters. “Where are we going to fight?” said Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.). “Where is the president going to lead? And are we going to follow?” Pragmatists in the party leadership such as Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of New York voted with Hoyer. Liberal leaders, including assistant leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut, went with Pelosi. So while Tuesday’s vote made plain that Boehner now needs Democratic support to keep the government operating, Democrats still don’t have a position to rally around. Democratic optimists say the break in Republican ranks is a window of opportunity for their party to begin winning the message war and force concessions from the GOP. But it also gives Boehner an opening to work with centrist Democrats to offset Republican defections, freezing out both the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party and the tea party wing of the GOP. Though they acknowledge a missed opportunity on Tuesday — Democrats say they had no idea so many Republicans would defect — liberals express confidence that a weakened Boehner will now move toward them to finish the year’s spending bills, and that will help unify them around a negotiated position. On the conservative side of their caucus, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said he’s ready to vote for a six-month spending bill that finishes off the fiscal year as long as it doesn’t eliminate funding for Head Start and NPR affiliates. Peterson, who often mingles with Republicans on a House balcony, said Boehner’s camp used rank-and-file liaisons to seek conservative Democrats’ support for the short-term bill before Tuesday’s vote. “There’s more of that going on,” Peterson said. That may not bode well for Democratic leaders as they move from the relatively simple task of completing last year’s spending bills to the stickier wickets on the legislative playing field. Some Democrats insist that now is the time to address long-term deficits and debt. The two parties are jockeying for the upper hand when Congress is forced to raise the debt ceiling later this year, and the fight over fiscal 2011 spending is backing up against the fiscal 2012 budget and the ensuing appropriations bills for the year. In separate meetings with Senate and House Democrats in the past week, senior administration officials, including chief of staff Bill Daley, top White House lobbyist Rob Nabors, political adviser David Plouffe and Budget Director Jack Lew, have heard the frustrations of lawmakers who aren’t sure whether the White House even has a position on a long-term spending bill. Adding to the frustration, Senate Democratic sources say the White House told senators at a private Democratic Policy Committee meeting last Thursday that polling shows the public isn’t engaged in the fight over finishing last year’s spending bills. Administration officials say privately that’s an overly simplistic characterization of why they’re approaching the battle over the continuing resolution the way they are. But tension remains. “There are two things you hear time and again: One, where’s the White House? And two, what are we for that we can point to?” said a Senate Democratic source. “Our negotiations and conversations are being treated confidentially on our end, because that is what we have committed to,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said. Some Senate Democrats who face reelection in 2012 want the chance to burnish the buckles of tightened belts by voting for more dramatic spending cuts than they have been offered by Senate Democratic leaders. But their leaders are holding fast to the position it is time for House Republicans to make a counteroffer. “Last week, the Senate held two test votes — one on H.R. 1 and one on a Democratic alternative. We knew that neither one would have the votes to pass, but we held the votes anyway; and sure enough, they both went down. The purpose of those votes was to make it clear that both sides’ opening bids in this debate were nonstarters and thus pave the way for a serious, good-faith compromise,” New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said on the floor Wednesday. “But unfortunately, an intense, ideological tail continues to wag the dog over in the House of Representatives.” Citing a failed Democratic measure that would have funded the government at $10 billion less than current levels, rather than the $61 billion mark House Republicans approved, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois told POLITICO in a brief interview that “we know we have to come off that number.” But he quickly added “to some extent.” But what will please a diffuse Senate Democratic Caucus and appease House Republicans? That remains anyone’s guess. Democratic and Republican aides acknowledge a final bill would likely amount to less than the $61 billion House Republicans seek and exclude some of the more controversial policy preferences of that chamber’s conservatives. For example, a rider eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood is a nonstarter in the Senate — even with some moderate Republicans. But real questions remain: Would politically vulnerable Senate Democrats vote for smaller or larger spending cuts if given the chance? How much are House Democrats willing to sacrifice from federal accounts in order to keep a long-term bill free of controversial social policy riders? The real negotiations are going on between the staffs of Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said there’s “universal frustration” with the process but he’s confident “we’ll get an agreement” on the 2011 spending. “I think a deadline is probably the best driver.” Now, that deadline is set at April 8.

Energy and Power Subcommittee Explores Ways to Increase American Energy

Witnesses explain increased domestic production will lower gasoline prices, create jobs -pdf

March 17, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC – The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), convened a hearing on Thursday as part of the American Energy Initiative, an ongoing effort by House Republicans to address rising energy costs, create new jobs, and increase America’s energy security. Today the subcommittee focused on oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico, specifically the impacts of the administration’s drilling policies on jobs and gasoline prices. Former President Bill Clinton is reported to have recently echoed House Republican appeals for the Obama administration to lift the Gulf de facto drilling ban, calling the delays “ridiculous.”

Several witnesses testified that the key to lower energy prices and more jobs is increasing exploration and production of American supplies, asserting that the rising price at the pump is inextricably linked to the administration’s oppressive regulations on our oil and gas industries. 

Chairman Whitfield highlighted just how important the Gulf is to our nation’s economy and security, calling attention to the fact that, “Over the past several years, 30 percent of our total domestic oil production has come from the Gulf.”

James W. Noe, Executive Director of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition stressed the need for more immediate permitting in the Gulf, stating, “At gas stations all across America, millions of our citizens are now feeling the impact of this administration’s policies. The prospects for a real and lasting economic recovery are seriously threatened by higher energy prices for every business and consumer. The solution is not to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The solution is to immediately resume domestic oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Professor Joseph Mason from Louisiana State University summarized the mounting loss of economic activity from stalled development in the Gulf, estimating a total potential national loss in economic output at $4.4 billion and job losses totaling 19,000. Mason stated that, “Each day, more exploration and development activity in the Gulf is lost. The lost output will not be regained and the lost wages cannot be spent.”

James Adams, President and CEO of the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA), urged the committee to act quickly to help put the Gulf of Mexico back to work, cautioning of more job losses unless offshore permitting resumes. Adams warned, “Business owners who are struggling to retain highly-skilled employees for as long as possible will be forced into making more layoffs in the coming months. Without exploration permits, the market will further contract, thus resulting in the shameful decapitalization of the American offshore industry and the permanent loss of a world-class workforce.”

Some Democratic lawmakers were quick to repeat oft-cited statistics that understate America’s resources – likewise referenced by President Obama last week in his claim that our nation holds only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.  Witnesses explained that the 2 percent figure is misleading. The 2 percent figure does not count hundreds of billions of barrels of oil that America has, but that the government will not allow to be developed, such as oil shale, the Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain west. In fact, 97.5% of the Outer Continental Shelf is not leased for energy, and the small area that is leased includes areas currently leased but blocked from development by the government in the Gulf of Mexico, California and Alaska.

Others repeated the claim that the U.S has experienced an increase in domestic oil production since President Obama took office, accusing the witnesses of propaganda in their calls for more drilling. Noe dismissed the notion that Obama was responsible for this production boost, noting that, “It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the oil and gas industry works for the Obama Administration to take credit for the increase in production. The increase in production we have seen in the last couple of years was the result of the new oil coming online that was decades in the making….these projects took years of planning and they were planned and executed under the apparatus of the prior administration. The federal government’s EIA has already itself stated that production has declined in 2010 and will continue to do so in 2011.”

Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton (R-MI) has pledged the Committee’s support to an all-of the-above energy strategy. Today’s hearing highlighted the important role increased oil production in the Gulf of Mexico will play in the ongoing effort to reduce energy prices and creating more American jobs.

HEARING

The American Energy Initiative

March 17, 2011

The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a multi-day hearing on “The American Energy Initiative.”  The hearing was on Thursday, March 17, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. 

Background Memo

Watch the Archived Webcast 

Opening Statements

Opening Statements from Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton

Witness List and Testimony

Lucian Pugliaresi
President
Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc.
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

Dr. Joseph R. Mason
Professor
E.J. Ourso School of Business
Louisiana State University
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

Jim Noe
Executive Director
Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

Jim Adams
President
Offshore Marine Service Association
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

Marty Massey
Chief Executive Officer
Marine Well Containment Company
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

Rip Daniels
CEO/Manager, WJZD-FM
Vice President, Mississippi Gulf Coast Tourism Commission
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

Dr. Mark Cooper
Research Director
Consumer Federation of America
Written Testimony (Truth in Testimony Form)

"If You See Something, Say Something (TM)" Public Awareness video.

Uploaded by ushomelandsecurity on Mar 15, 2011

The "If You See Something, Say Something (TM)" Public Awareness video, learn more about the campaign athttp://www.dhs.gov/ifyouseesomethingsaysomething

Standing with Japan

Uploaded by whitehouse on Mar 17, 2011

President Obama provides an update on the situation in Japan following earthquakes and a tsunami and says the United States is committed to providing support and helping Japan recover and rebuild. March 17, 2011.

President Obama's Statement on Libya

Uploaded by whitehouse on Mar 18, 2011

The President says that the United States stands ready to act as part of an international coalition if Moammar Qaddafi does not immediately stop attacks on civilians and honor the terms of a cease-fire agreement. March 18, 2011.

First Lady Michelle Obama Hosts White House Garden Spring Planting

 

Uploaded by whitehouse on Mar 16, 2011

For the third time, First Lady Michelle Obama replanted the White House garden on the South Lawn with elementary students from local DC schools. The garden includes spinach, peas, lettuce, broccoli, blueberries, raspberries and other vegetables and herbs.

PM statement on the UN Security Council Resolution on Libya

Friday 18 March 2011

Prime Minister David Cameron has delivered a statement to the House of Commons following the UN Security Council adoption of Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya.

Read the statement

Mr Speaker, over three weeks ago, the people of Libya took to the streets in protest against Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, asking for new rights and freedoms.  There were hopeful signs that a better future awaited them, and that like people elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa they were taking their destiny into their own hands. 

Mr Speaker, far from meeting those aspirations, Colonel Gaddafi has responded by attacking his own people.  He has brought the full might of armed forces to bear on them, backed up by mercenaries.  The world has watched as he has brutally crushed his own people.  

On 23 February, the UN secretary general cited the reported nature and scale of attacks on civilians as, and I quote, “egregious violations of international and human rights law” and called on the government of Libya to meet its responsibility to protect its people.  The Secretary General said later that more than 1,000 people had been killed and many more injured in Libya, amidst credible and consistent reports of arrests, detention and torture.  Over the weekend of 26 and 27 February, at Britain’s instigation, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1970.  This condemned Gaddafi’s actions.  It imposed a travel ban and asset freezes on those at the top of his regime.  It demanded an end to the violence, access for international human rights monitors and the lifting of restrictions on the media, and vitally it referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court so that its leaders should face the justice they deserve.  

Mr Speaker, in my statement to this House on 28 February I set out the steps that we would take to implement these measures.  Our consistent approach has been to isolate the Gaddafi regime, deprive it of money, shrink its power and ensure that anyone responsibility for abuses in Libya will be held to account.  I also told this House that I believe contingency planning should be done for different scenarios, including involving military assets, and that this should include plans for a no-fly zone.  

Mr Speaker, intervening in another country’s affairs should not be undertaken save in quite exceptional circumstances.  That is why we’ve always been clear that preparing for eventualities that might include the use of force, including a no-fly zone or other measures to stop humanitarian catastrophe, would require three steps and three tests to be met: demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal basis.  

First, demonstrable need. Gaddafi’s regime has ignored the demand of the UN Security Council Resolution 1970 that it stop the violence against the Libyan people.  His forces have attacked peaceful protesters and are now preparing for a violent assault on a city, Benghazi, of a million people, that has a history dating back 2,500 years.  They have begun air strikes in anticipation of what we expect to be a brutal attack using air, land and sea forces.  Gaddafi has publicly promised that every home will be searched and that there will be no mercy and no pity shown.  If we want any sense of what that might mean, we only have to look at what happened in Zawiya, where tanks and heavy weaponry were used to smash through a heavily populated town with heavy loss of life.  And we don’t have to guess what happens when he has subdued a population:  Human Rights Watch have catalogued the appalling human rights abuses that are being committed in Tripoli.  Now the people of eastern Libya are faced with the same treatment.  Mr Speaker, that is the demonstrable need. 

Second, regional support.  We’ve said there must be a clear wish from the people of Libya and the wider region for international action.  It was the people of Libya, through their Transitional National Council, who were the first to call for protection from air attack through a no-fly zone.  More recently, the Arab League have made the same demand.  And, Mr Speaker, I would say this: it really has been remarkable how Arab leaders have come forward and condemned the actions of Gaddafi’s government.  In recent days I’ve spoken with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, and a number of Arab nations have made clear that they are willing to participate themselves in enforcing this resolution.  And this support goes far beyond the Arab world: last night all three African members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of the resolution.

Mr Speaker, the third and essential condition was that there should be a clear legal base.  That is why, along with France, Lebanon and the United States, we worked hard to draft appropriate language which could command the support of the international community.  Last night the UN Security Council agreed that resolution.  Resolution 1973 demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against and abuses of civilians.  It establishes a ban on all flights in the airspace of Libya in order to help protect civilians, and it authorises member states to take, and I quote, “all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban”. 

Crucially, it says this in Paragraph 4: it authorises member states acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements and acting in co-operation with the Secretary General to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack, including Benghazi.  Mr Speaker, the resolution both authorises and sets the limits of our action.  Specifically, it excludes an occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, which was a clear agreement between all the sponsors of the resolution, including the UK and of course the Arab League.  I absolutely believe that this is the right thing both to say and to do. 

As our ambassador to the United Nations said, the central purpose of this resolution is to end the violence, protect civilians and allow the people of Libya to determine their own future, free from the brutality unleashed by the Gaddafi regime.  The Libyan population wants the same rights and freedoms that people across the Middle East and North Africa are demanding and that are enshrined in the values of the United Nations Charter.  Resolution 1973 puts the weight of the Security Council squarely behind the Libyan people in defence of those values, and our aims are entirely encapsulated by that resolution.

Mr Speaker, demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal base, the three criteria, are now satisfied in full.  Now that the UN Security Council has reached its decision there is a responsibility on its members to respond, and that is what Britain, with others, will now do.  Mr Speaker, the Attorney General has been consulted and the Government is satisfied that there is a clear and unequivocal legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets.  He advised Cabinet this morning and his advice was read and discussed.  The Security Council has adopted Resolution 1973 as a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.  The resolution specifically authorises notifying member states to use all necessary measures to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, including Benghazi. 

At Cabinet this morning, we agreed the UK will play its part.  Our forces will join an international operation to enforce the resolution if Gaddafi fails to comply with its demand that he ends attacks on civilians.  The Defence Secretary and I have now instructed the Chief of the Defence Staff to work urgently with our allies to put in place the appropriate military measures to enforce the resolution, including a no-fly zone, and I can tell the House that Britain will deploy Tornados and Typhoons as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft.  Preparations to deploy these aircraft have already started, and in the coming hours they will move to air bases from where they can start to take the necessary action.  The Government will table a substantive motion for debate next week, but I’m sure the House will accept that the situation requires us to move forward, on the basis of the Security Council resolution, immediately. 

I’m sure that the whole House and all sides of the House call upon Colonel Gaddafi to respond immediately to the will of the international community and cease the violence against his own people.  I spoke to President Obama last night and to President Sarkozy this morning.  There will be a clear statement later today setting out what we now expect from Colonel Gaddafi. 

We should never, Mr Speaker, prepare to or deploy British forces lightly or without careful thought.  We have, I believe, in this case, given extremely careful thought to the situation that we have in hand.  I think it is absolutely right that we played a leading role on the UN Security Council to secure permission for this action, and I believe it is absolutely right that we now work with allies to make sure that resolution is brought about.  I know there will be many people in our country who will now want the questions answered about what we are doing and how we will go about it, and I intend to answer all those questions in the hours and days ahead and to work with our brave armed services to make sure that we do the right thing for the people of Libya, for the people of our country and for the world as a whole.

GOP leader calls for action on Colombia FTA

Posted on Thursday, 03.17.11

As President Obama departs on a trip to Latin America this weekend, many Americans are wondering why he has still not acted on critical free-trade agreements with two of our closest allies in the region. In his most recent State of the Union address, the president expressed his desire to pursue free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama as a way to create jobs here at home at a time when we need them most.

His continued delay in taking the necessary steps to finalize those deals is not only disappointing for those of us looking for ways to boost the economy but also perplexing.

The administration’s action on a trade agreement with South Korea was a clear sign of its confidence in the benefits that come from free trade deals. Indeed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that completing deals with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, when taken together, would protect 380,000 U.S. jobs. Completing these deals is also a matter of basic fairness. A recently-completed deal between Colombia and the European Union now means that if a French farm equipment company sells a tractor to a company in Colombia, it won’t have to pay a punishing tariff that American companies do. Why would the White House tolerate a situation in which our firms are taxed at the Colombian border on their goods, while our European competitors are not?

This is completely unacceptable, and that’s why Senate Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that all three trade deals must be moved through Congress as quickly as possible. American job creators deserve better than what they’re getting from this administration’s delays. The excuses coming out of the White House have been patronizing at best, not only to American businesses and workers who are clamoring for presidential action, but also to our close allies in Latin America who are just as perplexed as we are that the administration continues to slow-walk these deals.

Both were negotiated and finalized three years ago, and bipartisan approval in the Senate is all-but assured. Still, the administration continues to call for more time.

The president’s inaction seems to elicit a new critic with each passing week. Fellow Democrats like Senator Max Baucus of Montana have called on the White House to approve these deals for the sake of job creation here at home. And the editorial board at The Washington Post has written that the arguments the president has used to delay action were “never as serious as he contended, and are well on their way to resolution.” With those on the left and the right calling on the president to act, the time for delay is clearly over.

With 14 million Americans out of work, passing these trade agreements and having the president sign them is one of the easiest ways to help American-based businesses create good paying, private-sector jobs. By providing new export opportunities for U.S. businesses, the economic impact of these deals would be felt immediately by farmers and ranchers, and workers nationwide.

The president has said that he wants to improve America’s stature in the world, but by putting these deals on the back-burner, that is exactly what he puts at risk in our own backyard. Republicans in Congress — and an increasing number of Democrats — can only hope that Latin American leaders remind President Obama of all this, and that he acts. Until then, we look forward to sending all three free-trade agreements to the president’s desk this year, and an end to the curious passivity that continues to delay the growth of American private-sector jobs.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is the Senate Republican leader.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/17/2120490/gop-leader-calls-for-action-on.html#ixzz1GzikobA2

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Hydropower Improvement Act

March 18th, 2011  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE              CONTACT: ROBERT DILLON (202) 224-6977 MARCH 18, 2011                                                    MEGAN HERMANN (202) 224-7875                                                Senators Introduce Bipartisan Hydropower Improvement Act   WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, yesterday introduced the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 629), which was co-sponsored by Sens. Begich (D-AK), Bingaman (D-NM), Cantwell (D-WA), Crapo (R-ID), Murray (D-WA), Risch (R-ID), Whitehouse (D-RI),  and Wyden (D-OR).   The bill seeks to substantially increase the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support local job creation and economic investment across the nation.   Murkowski: “There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution, as it is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. Hydropower is certainly something we understand in my home state of Alaska, where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the state’s electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified.”   Begich: “If you want to be serious about renewable energy, hydropower has to be part of the discussion.  Nowhere is that more true than Alaska, which holds over a third of our country’s untapped hydropower.  This legislation shows the way.  We can develop fish-friendly hydro sites that lower ratepayers costs.  It’s that simple.”    Bingaman: “This bill allows us to highlight the potential for development of additional hydropower resources in an environmentally responsible way.  It includes provisions that address the potential for hydropower development from smaller sources that are available, even in a dry state like New Mexico. Additionally, the bill emphasizes the need to improve efficiency at existing facilities and to tap into the hydropower potential at existing non-powered dams.  I appreciate the ability to work with Senator Murkowski and the other members of the committee on this bipartisan bill.”   Cantwell: “Emissions-free hydropower is the backbone of Washington’s economy, providing around three quarters of our electricity, and keeping our rates among the lowest in the country. This bipartisan bill will help find ways to increase our nation's hydropower capacity without building new dams, improving air quality while creating new clean energy jobs.”   Crapo: “As we try to shift quickly from a carbon-based economy, hydropower is one of the few forms of energy that can bridge the gap between where we are and where we want to be.  That is why I am a proud sponsor of this legislation, which utilizes existing authorizations and does not add to the federal deficit.”   Murray: “Hydropower is a critical energy resource in the Pacific Northwest, and we have one of the lowest carbon footprints here to prove it. I look forward to the working with my colleagues to pass the Hydropower Improvement Act, which will help increase the use of hydropower in an environmentally friendly way while creating new jobs and bringing additional clean energy online.”   Risch: “Hydropower remains the cleanest and one of the most dependable, cost-effective domestic sources of energy.  At a time when energy prices are climbing, it makes sense to do all we can to support and expand this segment of the industry.  Streamlining the relicensing process and retrofitting existing structures for energy production is a no-brainer.”   Whitehouse: "Rising oil prices, hurting countless Rhode Islanders, reinforce our need for renewable energy sources. Simplifying the process for developing small hydropower projects will help our country better harness the clean power of our natural resources.”   Wyden: “The water already running through irrigation canals, water supply pipes and stored behind existing dams in Oregon and the rest of the country is literally an untapped energy resource. This bill will help irrigation districts, municipal water systems, and others recover clean, renewable electricity from hydroelectric projects with low environmental impact using existing water supplies.  I look forward to working with Sen. Murkowski and the other co-sponsors of this legislation to move this bill forward in the Senate Energy Committee.”    Details of the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011   Seeks to substantially increase our nation’s hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean power generation and create domestic jobs.    Establishes a competitive grants program and directs the Energy Department to produce and implement a plan for the research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower capacity.    Provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend preliminary permit terms; to work with federal resource agencies to make the review process more efficient for conduit and small hydropower projects; and to explore a possible two-year licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects.    Calls for studies on the resource development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities and in conduit projects, as well as on suitable pumped storage locations.  Importantly, by utilizing existing authorizations, the bill does not represent new funding.