The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works released a report today titled, "Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails
and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic
Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and
documents affect the scientific work of the United Nations IPCC, and how
revelations of the IPCC’s flawed science impacts the EPA’s endangerment
finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU
controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded
research and possibly federal laws.  

In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

– Obstructed release of damaging data and information

– Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions

– Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"

– Assumed activist roles to influence the political process

"This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.  "It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.

"The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science.  And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system.  It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this.  Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science.  It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-apolicy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline."

Israel’s air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and could fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range.

The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet, making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel’s military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours.

The Associated Press is reporting that in the fleet’s inauguration ceremony at a sprawling air base in central Israel, the drone dwarfed an F-15 fighter jet parked beside it. The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching an altitude of more than 40,000 feet.

In past conflicts, various types and sizes of unmanned planes have been used in missions like long-range surveillance and attacking enemy targets with guided missiles in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, where anti-aircraft systems are rudimentary.

They have proven much less successful in conflicts where the opponents possessed better anti-aircraft weapons.

During NATO’s aerial onslaught against Serbia in 1999, for example, Serbian forces quickly shot down 42 U.S. drones, drastically reducing the effectiveness of the bombing campaign.

Israel’s military was the first to make widespread use of drones in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, according to Mark Daly, an expert on unmanned aircraft at Jane’s defense publications in London.

Israeli companies are considered world leaders in drone technology and now export unmanned aircraft to a number of armies, including U.S.-led forces that have used them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Over 80 leaders, representing tens of millions of conservative activists nationwide, yesterday signed The Mount Vernon Statement, a
declaration of leadership for a new generation of conservatives that
defines the principles, values and beliefs of the conservative movement.  All Americans are invited to join them.

“With this statement, and its many signatories, a new day dawns for the conservative movement,” said Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, and one of the drafters of the statement.  “It reasserts conservative principles, values and beliefs that are embraced by more people in this country than those of any political ideology.  Fifty years ago, the federal government threatened to grow exponentially.  Visionaries then gathered in Sharon, Connecticut, to articulate essential principles of American governance.  Today, that threat is even greater, and so we must articulate anew the nature of Constitutional Conservatism in the 21st Century.”

“This is an historic moment as, since the 2008 election, conservative leaders from across the country have been meeting and planning a comeback.  A year ago some pundits claimed that conservatism was effectively dead.  But today, as revelations about Washington’s futility in addressing America’s problems continue to mount, the movement is alive and poised for a resurgence of Constitutional Conservative leadership,” said Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan and master of ceremonies for the signing event.

In September 1960 a similar document called the Sharon Statement was signed by the movement’s leaders at the home of National Review Editor William F. Buckley, Jr., at his home in Sharon, Conn.  Today’s signing event took place at the Collingwood Library and Museum in Alexandria, Va., part of the original Mount Vernon estate owned by George Washington. 

In a demonstrable show of unity, The Mount Vernon Statement was signed by conservative leaders who represent all major elements of the conservative movement – economic, social and national security.  The signing ceremony was organized by, and an outgrowth of, the Conservative Action Project, which is chaired by Mr. Meese and designed to facilitate conservative leaders working together on behalf of common goals.  Individuals may sign The Mount Vernon Statement as well by going to the web site: http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/. 

“This event demonstrates that the conservative movement is vibrant, energized and organized to lead America into a renewed era of liberty and self government,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, and nephew of William F. Buckley,Jr.

“Conservative principles are timeless and effective.  Americans are realizing this truth as they watch – in horror – as government officials violate the principles and practices that have America strong and good,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.  “This is the right time – with more and more citizens becoming involved – to clearly and plainly lay out the foundational beliefs that bind us together, the values that will put American back on track.”

“The strength of the American conservative movement has always been its firm adherence to the first principles of the American Founding.  The Mount Vernon Statement is in that honored tradition, building on the Sharon Statement and offering a reaffirmation of the ideas of the most important document in our history—the U.S. Constitution,” said Lee Edwards a leading historian of the conservative movement and Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation.  Mr.Edwards was at the Sharon Statement signing in September 1960.

Among other conservative leaders, signatories to The Mount Vernon Statement included: Tony Perkins,president of the Family Research Council; Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy; Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center; Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator; David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union; David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society; T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government; Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness; Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com, Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority; Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring and Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review and many others.

(WASHINGTON, DC) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement in response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address:

“President Obama is right to be concerned about the size of our debt and the scope of our economic challenges.  Unless Congress changes course quickly, future generations will inherit crushing debt, high unemployment and limited opportunities.  We simply can’t go on as we have and expect a robust recovery to take root.  We’ve spent too many years borrowing money we don’t have to spend on things we don’t need.”

“However, if President Obama wants to become the transformational leader he is capable of being, he needs to recognize he was given a mandate to unify the country, not drive through the agenda of the ideological left.  This has been a year of hyper-partisanship in Washington because the President and congressional leadership have chosen a hyper-partisan, ideological agenda that has divided America.  If the President brought the political center of the country together he may not always get my vote, but the country would be better off.  Still, I make no apologies for saying no to the obscene abuse of taxpayer dollars that takes place as a matter of course in the United States Senate.”

“Calling on only one party to reform itself is not leadership; it is partisanship – no matter how calmly the argument is presented.  The challenges the President inherited were not the product of George Bush but a long legacy of complex challenges beginning with the New Deal, Great Society and Republican complicity in growing the size and scope of government.  The President and every member of Congress understands that the vast majority of our unfunded liabilities are due to the impending bankruptcy and Social Security and Medicare.  Instead of placing blame, we should be working on real solutions that will secure the future for future generations.”

“The President can help recover the heritage of service and sacrifice that made our country great by imposing fiscal discipline on Congress now, not until after the next election.  Specifically, the President can force the change he campaigned on by vetoing fiscally irresponsible bills this year – not next year – that increase spending and are loaded with pork.  The best next step on earmark reform would be a Presidential veto of pork-laden spending bills this year.” 

“The President’s support for a fiscal reform commission is well-intended, but the American people believe we already have a commission to confront our debt.  It’s called the United States Congress.  If members of Congress aren’t up to that task we don’t need a new commission, we need a new Congress.”

“I fear we will never tackle our big challenges – such as the impending bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security – when we can’t tackle smaller challenges such as consolidating duplicative programs.  Yesterday, senators had the opportunity to take small steps on the road to recovery but they refused.  The Senate voted to protect a generous six percent budget increase for itself while American families cut their budgets.  The Senate also refused to cut discretionary spending outside of defense and veterans issues by five percent, even though both parties have worked together to double the size of the federal budget in the past decade.  These should have been easy votes for senators.  Instead, they complained the work was too hard.”

“The President has unique constitutional powers to force Congress to take at least the small steps it must take toward fiscal responsibility.  If the President backs up his words with real action he’ll find few allies in Congress – though I’ll be one – but he’ll have an army of supporters among the American people.”

“Finally, I look forward to again presenting to the President my comprehensive health care reform proposal – the Patients’ Choice Act – which I introduced in May of last year along with U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) and Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA).  Our bill meets all of the President’s goals without raising taxes, busting the budget or putting the government in charge of health care.”

The Oklahoma delegation strongly objects to both the House and Senate versions of health care reform legislation.  Specifically objecting to “unfunded mandates” and “kickbacks” the letter dated Friday, January 21 to Rep Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives was crafted by Rep Mary Fallin and signed by all the members of the delegation.  The letter follows:

January 21, 2010

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

We the undersigned members of Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation, request your consideration of the implications unfunded mandates within health care legislation will have on state budgets.  While we support health care reforms to lower costs and increase access to America’s health care system, Oklahomans need health reforms that reduce costs, not impose new ones.  We believe such mandates will cripple Oklahoma’s state budget and reduce the quality of health care for our Medicaid enrollees, and therefore urge you to exclude any unfunded federal mandates from the final bill.

Both the House and Senate bills would increase health care coverage by expanding the Medicaid program and requiring states to pick up a portion of the tab, the cost of which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $26 billion.  The Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimated this mandate would cost to the State of Oklahoma an additional $128 million each year.  As a delegation, we are deeply concerned this mandate would force drastic funding cuts for valuable state programs and significantly deteriorate the choice and quality of Oklahomans’ health care programs.

Nationwide, states have been forced to face the harsh fiscal realities of the current economic recession.  In December 2009, Oklahoma’s general revenue collections fell 31 percent below projections, forcing state agencies to cut their budgets by 10 percent.  Critical services such as Oklahoma’s public safety are on the line.  For example, 4,600 employees at the Department of Corrections are scheduled to be furloughed, leaving many facilities understaffed.  We fear additional unfunded mandates imposed by a health care bill would exacerbate this situation and result in further cuts to critical education and infrastructure funding.

We also want to voice our objection to language in the Senate-passed health care bill that singles out three specific states for special treatment to help them offset the additional costs imposed by the Medicaid expansion.  It is wrong to carve out special treatment for certain states and expect Oklahoma’s taxpayers to pay and we question the legality of these kickbacks.  In the middle of a state budget crisis, our taxpayers should not be expected to finance back-room deals made in Washington.

We are all dedicated to improving the quality of health care in our nation by reducing costs and increasing access for American families and businesses, but an unfunded Medicaid expansion that bankrupts state budgets is precisely the wrong way to go.  As a delegation, we stand ready to work with you on legitimate cost-saving reforms, but will oppose any attempt to saddle our state and our constituents with burdensome federal costs we simply cannot afford.

Sincerely,

[Signed by the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation]

U.S. House of Representatives
 
District 1 Representative
John Sullivan

District 2 Representative
Dan Boren

District 3 Representative
Frank Lucas

District 4 Representative
Tom Cole

District 5 Representative
Mary Fallin