Energy Department rejects Trump's request for names of employees going to climate meetings

Image result for drain the swampThe Department of Energy said Tuesday it is refusing to cooperate with a Trump transition team request that it hand over all names of employees who have participated in international climate changeconferences.

"We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team," Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said in a statement sent to the Washington Examiner.


Other than that, the agency plans to be "forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team," he said.


News of the 74-question list from the Trump transition team arose last week. The questionnaire contains the controversial request that Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said Monday appeared to be "badgering" employees for supporting research on climate change. Udall is the top Democrat on panels under both the Senate Foreign Relations and Appropriations committees that deal with energy and environment policy and funding, where he likely will raise the matter.

Views: 679

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why are all of the democrats female picks look like lesbians?

Joe

Possibly because they are?

Within a month of taking office; he needs to replace the top 10 at this agency.

No... Trump needs to announce that his legal counsel and the DOJ find no Constitutional authority too use taxpayer funds  to support this Unconstitutional Department... That the President will use his Executive Authority to manage the Administration to sequester all funds budgeted for this agency... recommending Congress transfer a portion of those funds the Interior Department as it picks up any Constitutional duties previously assigned to the Energy Department.. The President also needs to direct the new Secretary of Energy recommend procedures and a time table for closing the Department and transferring  any Constitutional functions it has (if any) to the Department of Interior... where an Office of Energy... will be opened to perform any Constitutional functions... ie... managing energy leases on federal lands..

Trump needs to consider Col Nelson in an advisory roll somewhere in his admisistration

news release

Date: December 16, 2016
Contact: Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov
Tracey Moriarty (BOEM), 703-787-1571

Interior Department Auctions Over 79,000 Acres Offshore New York for Wind Energy Development

WASHINGTON – Furthering President Obama’s comprehensive Climate Action Plan to create American jobs, develop domestic clean energy resources and cut carbon pollution, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Abigail Ross Hopper today announced the completion of the nation’s sixth competitive lease sale for renewable energy in federal waters. Today’s lease sale offered 79,350 acres offshore New York for potential wind energy development.

The provisional winner of today’s lease sale is Statoil Wind US LLC, which bid $42,469,725 for lease area OCS-A 0512. Avangrid Renewables, LLC, DONG Energy Wind Power (U.S.) Inc., Innogy US Renewable Projects LLC, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and wpd offshore Alpha LLC also participated in the lease sale.

“This auction underscores the growing market demand for renewable energy among our coastal communities,” said Secretary Jewell. “It not only marks another milestone for the U.S. offshore wind energy program, but also demonstrates how our collaborative efforts with state, local and private sector partners can advance a clean energy future in the United States. I’m proud of what the Interior Department has accomplished over the past eight years to build a strong foundation to harness the incredible potential of offshore wind.”

The Obama Administration established an enduring renewable energy program at the Department, including the nation’s first program for offshore wind leasing and permitting. Over the past eight years, BOEM has fostered offshore renewable energy development through a collaborative state-federal process to identify Wind Energy Areas and hold competitive lease sales. To date, BOEM has awarded eleven commercial wind leases, including nine through its competitive lease sale process. These lease sales have generated more than $16 million in winning bids for more than one million acres in federal waters

“We are extremely pleased by the results of this lease sale,” said BOEM Director Abigail Ross Hopper. “We have seen robust competitive interest for this auction, as evidenced by 33 rounds of bidding – the most we have seen for any of our lease sales to date. BOEM will continue to work with the members of out New York Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force and the public on any future wind energy project proposed for this lease area.”

The New York Wind Energy Area starts approximately 11.5 nautical miles (nm) from Jones Beach, NY. From its western edge, the area extends approximately 24 nm southeast at its longest portion. The lease area consists of five full Outer Continental Shelf blocks and 143 sub-blocks. A map of the lease area can be found here.

Before the lease is executed, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission will conduct an anti-competitiveness review of the auction, and the provisional winner will be required to pay the winning bid and provide financial assurance to BOEM. The lease will have a preliminary term of one year, during which the lessee may submit a Site Assessment Plan (SAP) to BOEM for approval. The SAP will describe the facilities (e.g., meteorological towers or buoys) a lessee plans to install or deploy for the assessment of the wind resources and ocean conditions of its commercial lease area.

Following approval of a SAP, the lessee will then have four and a half years to submit a Construction and Operations Plan (COP) to BOEM for approval. This plan will provide a detailed proposal for the construction and operation of a wind energy project within the lease area.

Once BOEM receives a COP, it will conduct an environmental review of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. Public input will be an important part of BOEM’s review process. If BOEM approves the COP, the lessee will then have a term of 25 years to construct and operate the project.

For more information on today’s auction, visit BOEM’s New York webpage: https://www.boem.gov/new-york/.

The latest blog posts from the Cato Institute:

Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Trump

Posted on December 15, 2016 by Benjamin H. Friedman

Prior to attacking intelligence assessments on Russian hacking and meeting with Kanye this week, the president-elect went on a bit of a defense jag. Monday, @realDonaldTrump bashed Lockheed’s F-35 joint strike fighter program for its “out of control” price-tag.  He said the same of Boeing’s Air Force One replacement last week. Saturday, he vaguely tweeted his approval for a Washington Post story claiming that the Pentagon “buried evidence” that it wastes $25 billion a year. Sunday, on Fox News, Trump criticized both aircraft and implied that their excessive cost results from a corrupt practice: the revolving door, where officials manage weapons programs and then go work for the manufacturer.

Trump’s tweets temporarily lowered defense contractors’ stock prices, prompting speculation that he’s paying CEOs back for criticism, or worse. But Trump’s comments aren’t new. He attacked the F-35 during the campaign. He claimed that he could fund a massive military buildup by “conducting a full audit of the Pentagon, eliminating incorrect payments, reducing duplicative bureaucracy, collecting unpaid taxes, and ending unwanted and unauthorized federal programs.”  He promised to “balance our budget,” by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” in the federal government. He repeatedly suggested that corporate interests—pharmaceutical, oil, finance and defense companies,” have hijacked government and added to its cost.

Trump’s views on Pentagon waste then seem less whim than an outgrowth of his approach to public policy. Does that mean Trump is set to “crack down” on Pentagon spending, “make war on the defense industry or take on the “military-industrial complex?” There are several reasons why the answer is not really.

One is Trump’s appointments. As in other areas, they conflict with his campaign rhetoric. Trump famously said he knows more about ISIS than the generals, but seems inclined to defer to those that he deems “his.”  That’s especially true of his Secretary of Defense pick, retired general James Mattis, who has mostly conventionally-hawkish views on military spending. For example, he repeats the false claim that sequestration, which only occurred once since the 2011 Budget Control Act, in 2013, annually slices the defense budget across-the-board.  He even called sequestration a bigger threat than any U.S. enemy, while testifying in favor of a military spending boost. Mattis casts doubt on Trump’s commitment to defense reform in another way: he raced through the revolving door, going to work for General Dynamics upon his retirement from military service in 2013.

Another reason to doubt that Trump can successfully mine “waste, fraud and abuse” for savings is that it’s mostly fool’s gold. Fraud and abuse amount to small potatoes in Pentagon terms. Waste is tough to cut because people disagree on what it is. One man’s waste is another’s (usually a committee chair or Undersecretary) vital national security program. Going after waste requires political fights for which Trump seems unprepared.

I made that argument last week in the National Interest:

Budget cutters like to target waste because it means savings without sacrifice. Waste has no lobby or constituency, so you lose nothing and offend no one in hunting it. But true savings, even the efficiency sort where you do the same missions for less cost, don’t come for nothing. Efficiency savings include closing bases, combining or shuttering combatant commands, cutting a nuclear-weapons delivery system, lowering personnel costs and the like. All require political fights.

Bigger savings require going after the Pentagon’s efficient pursuit of foolish goals—by reducing military missions. With fewer wars to plan and fight, we could have less force structure, build fewer weapons and pay fewer people.

That piece tried to pour cold water on the Post story that Trump tweeted. For more criticism, see my letter to the editor, Robert Samuelson’s column, and Matt Fay’s post for the Niskanen Institute.

My point isn’t that we should buy F-35s or be content with growing overhead costs in the military. The point is that saving money there is more a political challenge than a managerial one, especially the sort solved by attacking overlap or graft.  Yes, there are procurement abuses facilitated by revolving doors. But closing them wouldn’t have helped F-35. Like most problematic acquisition programs, its troubles are belief in false economies of scale gained by joint production and an acquisition system that produces excessive requirements and incentives for premature production. That system reflects the will of Congress and the military services more than that of the contractors they hire.

Yes, the Pentagon suffers from subpar accounting. But that’s largely because it’s a confederation of services and offices with their own systems. Better record-keeping will highlight excessive spending, not stop it.

Yes, there’s duplication galore in the Pentagon. The Navy’s ground force duplicates the Army in many ways, for example. But Congress is not about to abolish the Marines. And that sort of redundancy usefully offers alternative solutions to military challenges. It also allows bureaucratic competition, which can produce some of the disciplining effects that market competition provides in the private sector.

The best way to target Pentagon inefficiency is to cut its topline. The budget should remain capped, ideally at a lower level, with the Overseas Contingency Operations budget included under the cap. That would prevent it from being used as a bailout fund preventing hard choices. Lower budgets will encourage Pentagon leaders to target administrative costs to protect more important programs. The department’s drive for efficiency, which has run under the past four defense secretaries, began as last decade’s massive military buildup waned. By promising a military buildup, Trump is closing off the best path to the efficiencies that he claims will fund it.

Mr. Bar is becoming a regular Trump naysayer... which side of the argument do you fall on...more of the same, or shall we wait and see just what Trump actually does?

By the Way Trumps choice for Secretary of Defense will require Congressional action to waive the existing law... former active duty military officers are precluded from becoming the Secretary within 7 yrs of their retirement from active duty...the only officer to have been Secretary of Defense within the 7yr provision was General Marshall. 

See:

10 U.S. Code § 113 - Secretary of Defense

§ 113.
Secretary of Defense
(a)
There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.

AND, the House of Representatives has ALREADY indicated that Trump's pick WILL get that waiver.

No Col.

I am 100% FOR President Trump

& pray that he does do what he has promised to do - - -

I only post what I 'think' people would like to 'read' that goes on in OUR Great Country & around the world in general. If you find this to be un-pleasing to you - - - I think you sir should 'suck-it-up' & move on to a post that you do find more pleasing . . .

As for you, Col. I 'think' that you have a miss-place loyality to OUR President that borders on being Left-of LEFT -.-.-.-.

We will just have to wait until President Trump is in office to see if you are right

The next 4 years will tell

I ask all of you to forgive me for NOT having read completely thru all my posts

I only wanted to give all of you a 'fore-warning' as to what OUR Federal Government is (trying to) do to We The People that elected President Donald J. Trump & Vice-President Mike Pence.

I also ask your forgiveness in my spelling  - - When the teachers tried to teach me spelling I thought they kept saying YELLING & did not want to have anything to do with that . . .     :)

The Associated Press: With Ivanka Trump, role of first daughter may...
By Catherine Lucey
 
With Ivanka Trump, the typically minor role of first daughter could get a major makeover.
Read the full story here
 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Pelosi Disaster!  95% Of Americans Tuned Out Impeachment Show Trials On Friday — Only The Second Day Of Testimony

Despite the constant hype Americans are already tuning out the sham impeachment trials.

On the second day of the public show trials 95% of Americans turned off the nonsense.

Americans are worn out by all of the fake news and hysteria.

Devastating.

Dan Gainor   @dangainor
 

Yawn: 95% of U.S. Adults Skipped Day 2 of Democrats' Impeachment Hearings 

Yawn: 95% of U.S. Adults Skipped Friday’s Impeachment Hearings

Americans aren’t exactly obsessed with the Democrats’ impeachment hearings, it seems. Friday’s second day of live, wall-to-wall coverage drew an average of 12.7 million viewers on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,

Flashback: Horrible News For Shifty Schiff – Majority Of Americans Don’t Want Impeachment, 76% Don’t Trust Dems And Believe Media Is Pushing The Sham

No One in American Wants Impeachment except the Far-left Socialist Democrats and their Corrupt Media. They hate President Trump because he is a winner. He beat them and he’s making America great again as he said he would.

The Democrats and their corrupt media are totally blinded by their rage and they don’t realize that no one is in favor of impeachment.

We reported a week ago that FOX News released a poll where they stated that 49% of Americans were for Trump Impeachment. But their polling was flawed. The real extrapolated results of the poll using an accurate proportion of Republicans, Democrats and Independents showed that only 30% of Americans are in favor of Trump’s Impeachment and they’re all Democrats.

Next, a few days ago we reported on another poll that was consistent with the results of our extrapolated FOX News poll.

Nearly three quarters of all Americans have little or no trust in the way that Schifty Schiff is running the impeachment process –

Heritage Action   Heritage_Action
 

You won’t hear this in the mainstream media: Nearly three fourths of Americans have little to no trust in the House Democrats’ handling of their impeachment process. 🤔

Today another poll was released with similar results.

Most Americans believe that the corrupt media is trying to help get President Trump impeached. Three-quarter of Republicans, half of independents and even a third of Democrats believe this to be the case. No one trusts Schifty Shiff or the corrupt media pushing his impeachment sham.

IT Guy@ITGuy1959
 

1- "Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and a plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party say most reporters are trying to help impeach Trump, a view shared by only 36% of Democrats."

Let's recast that last phrase 

Rasmussen Reports @Rasmussen_Poll
 

Most Say Media Working With Democrats to Impeach Trump... 

This is perhaps the worst gaffe in modern political history.

This Schiff Show does not have a happy ending for the Democrats. Even with the support of the entire corrupt fake news media, it’s a total sham and everyone knows it!

Ranking Member Nunes breaks down House Democrats' fake impeachment inquiry

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service