Will Obama Sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an "Executive Agreement" bypassing the Senate?

Let me get this straight -- Obama and his people are saying this is not a treaty so he can sign an 'executive agreement,' but the Europeans consider it a binding treaty which would require ratification by the Senate.  That doesn't seem hard to figure out -- Obama is not legally allowed to sign an 'executive agreement' when it is a treaty.  What part of that doesn't he understand?  Could it be the fact that he promised he would sign it and doesn't have the nerve to tell the Europeans that the Senate has to ratify the treaty.  Without Senate ratification, his signature is worthless.

What else is Obama doing behind our backs that it takes a tech site to report because the media chooses to ignore?  Obama seems to think the Constitution is just a piece of paper he can ignore at will!

If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements 

from the bad-news dept of Tech Dirt

On of the sneakier parts of the ACTA is that the White House has insisted from the beginning that the document is not a binding treaty. Instead, it insists that ACTA is merely an "executive agreement." Of course, the only real difference is that an executive agreement doesn't require the Senate to ratify it. Basically, the US is calling it an executive agreement so that the administration can sign on without any oversight or scrutiny on the treaty. The Europeans, in the meantime, never got the "ix-nay on the inding-bay eaty-tray" notice from the US folks, and have been happily declaring ACTA a binding treaty as it clearly is.  

However, many legal experts have noted that this raises serious constitutional questions, as the Constitution simply does not allow this kind of agreement to be signed without Senate approval. Amusingly, Senator Biden -- back during the previous administration -- was one of the leading voices in trying to prevent President Bush from signing an "executive agreement" with Russia, without getting Senate approval. One wonders if he's magically changed his mind.

However, more and more people are getting concerned about this breach of the Constitution. James Love points us to a new paper at the American Society for International Law by Oona A. Hathaway and Amy Kapczynski, which worries about the precedent this will set if Obama signs it as an executive agreement and bypasses the Senate entirely.

No comparable agreement has been concluded in this way. Thus if concluded as a sole executive agreement, it would represent a significant expansion of the scope of such agreements. As a result, it could pave the way for more extensive use of sole executive agreements in the future. That, in turn, could have implications for the nature of democratic control over international legal agreements concluded by the United States, as well as the legitimacy of these agreements both at home and abroad.

Furthermore, the report notes that it does not seem Constitutional for the President to sign such a document as an executive agreement. The only things that can be signed as an executive agreement are things that are solely under the President's mandate. But intellectual property laws are clearly afforded to Congress and not the President under the Constitution -- meaning that he has no authority to sign this document without it first being approved by the Senate. The report notes that President Bush also tried to expand executive agreements, and ACTA would be a massive expansion in what could be covered under such agreements, taking away tremendous authority and oversight from Congress.

Setting a precedent for more expansive use of sole executive agreements has consequences not only for intellectual property law, but for any area in which an international agreement may be concluded—which is to say, nearly any area of law. International law now reaches into almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The possibility that such legal commitments could be made by the President without the input, much less approval, of Congress or the public raises serious questions about the potential of these agreements to undermine democratic lawmaking writ large 

This is pretty troubling for a variety of different reasons, and it seems like Congress itself should be pretty concerned about this attempt to take away its oversight on international agreements.

Armstrong Williams: Obama's supreme pre-election arrogance

This is the very reason that everyone opposed to the Obama agenda has to go vote and ensure that Republican tsunami happens. Republicans out voted Democrats in huge numbers in the primary and we have to do it again on November 2nd.

Obvious that Obama is going to throw a temper tantrum because he has always gotten his way in the past. Spoiled, pampered, ill-tempered, arrogant narcissist is about to find out that the vast majority of America is not in love with the socialist agenda of Obama.

We want our Country back and the Government out of our daily lives -- Obama does not know what is best for America because he never was raised as an American. He is far too radical for the vast majority of Americans. Guess he doesn't realize that a lot of union members already vote Republican no matter what their leaders say.

Vote November 2nd and make that a bad evening for Obama and a great evening for America!

Obama's supreme pre-election arroganceBy Armstrong Williams - 10/28/10 08:31 AM ET

Obama’s arrogance continues to astound.

I honestly don’t think he can see the coming Republican tsunami. He does not think this election is a referendum on him or his policies; rather, the electorate is just being fussy.

Today he is calling unions and urban radio stations encouraging them to vote because if they do in the same numbers as ’08, Dems will win easily. Well, guess what Mr. President, even your once-biggest supporters aren’t keen to see your agenda enacted.

Both Reagan and Clinton were able to recover from bad midterms by working with the other side, compromising to get their overarching agenda passed. Obama has made it clear that any supporters who are jumping off the bandwagon can go home and pout because he’s going to ram his vision of Hope and Change through no matter who stands in his way.

These are not the words of a compromiser, nor a man who understands nuance, as the press so praised him for back in ’08. His world is black and white; you are wrong and he is right.

This foolhardy narcissism will lead to the complete and utter failure of the Obama presidency, and Jimmy Carter will go to his grave knowing he wasn’t the worst president.

Source: The Hill

NEW SENATE REPORT: EPA'S POLICIES HARMING AMERICA'S MANUFACTURING BASE

We found this part of the report alarming:

Despite the President’s rhetoric, the economy is not turning around and
people are not getting back to work. When President Obama took office, the
unemployment rate was 7.6 percent; it’s now 9.6 percent.3 President Obama’s
central economic policy—namely, the $814 billion stimulus package passed in
2009—has manifestly failed to lower unemployment.4 "The Obama team has
blown it," said David Resler of Nomura Securities.

The Obama Administration’s Regulatory Uncertainty

Meanwhile, prospects for a robust economic recovery are bleak. There are
many reasons for this: one stems from the regulatory uncertainty created by the Obama Administration. Anti-business rules and regulations across federal agencies and departments have left employers wary of hiring or expanding. According to economist Mark Zandi,
businesses “are just nervous about a great deal of the policy uncertainty
coming out of Washington.”

In June, Ivan Seidenberg, the chairman of the Business Roundtable, an
organization representing more than 12 million employees, said the Obama
Administration is responsible for creating “an increasingly hostile
environment for investment and job creation.” He said further that policy
changes and regulatory actions “harm our ability…to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S.”

What do the new regulations mean to our oil refineries? Will the new regulations put some of the smaller refineries out of business that don't have the resources to upgrade while costing the big oil companies that own the huge refineries huge dollar mounts to comply? Is this what Obama and his EPA are up to -- putting refineries out of business so we have to rely on foreign oil.

At the same time, they are causing a hostile environment for other industries that will be more likely to move jobs overseas to produce their products.

EPA is an agency out of control and needs its wings clipped. In fact, EPA should no longer be their own agency but be brought back under one of the cabinet positions like Energy. They have done enough harm in the last 20 years with their ozone figures that keep decreasing the amount of particulates you can have in the air so that a farm in the middle of nowhere soon will not be in compliance.

Their reformulated gas regulations required in a lot of areas to protect the air quality is being determined to cause may cause pinging or premature burn in engines with excessive carbon deposits which could lead to needless wear and tear on the engines of vehicles that are forced to use it at 10 cents more a gallon. EPA found that the use of oxygenated fuels and RFG causes a small decrease (1-3%) in fuel economy. Now we learn that it takes more fuel to drive the same distance with reformulated gas so in addition to the 10 cents, it is also costing more for gas and causing wear and tear on the engines of newer vehicles. Doesn't seem to be a lot of common sense shown by the EPA especially when you learn they keep dropping the numbers for air quality to be in compliance.

This report released by Senator Inhofe is a real eye opener and needs widespread distribution. When you read the report of what the EPA is doing to manufacturing in America, it should make you livid and demand that the EPA be brought under control.  As we said before, we don't believe it should have ever been made a cabinet position as they have become uncontrollable especially under Democrat Administrations when they get a leftist in charge.

Once again Senator Inhofe and Republican members of the minority on this committee have come through for the American people. It is up to us to put pressure on the Administration and Democrats to make sure manufacturing is protected. How ironic that the Republicans who the unions work against in elections are the ones standing up for manufacturing jobs to stay in the United States while the Democrats with their regulations on manufacturing are ensuring jobs are sent overseas. You would think the unions would get a clue one of these days.

NEW SENATE REPORT: EPA'S POLICIES HARMING AMERICA'S MANUFACTURING BASE

Jobs, Economic Growth, and Environmental Progress at Risk

Link to Senate Report

Link to Press Release

FOX NEWS: Senate Report Warns of Obama Job-Killing Regulations:





EPW Report Shows New EPA Rules Will Cost More Than 800,000 jobs -- Listen to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) interview interview with Ed Morrissey:





Washington, DC-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released today a new EPW Minority staff report titled, "EPA's Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America's Manufacturing Base," which chronicles a series of EPA proposals that could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, many in the industrial heartland, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine the global competitiveness of America's manufacturers.

The report reviewed the following proposals:

- New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;

- New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;

- The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation; and

- The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.

Sen. Inhofe:

"I have great personal respect for EPA Administrator Jackson, but we disagree fundamentally on EPA's policies and the economic and financial harm they pose for consumers, workers, and small businesses. The record as outlined in this Minority report, which includes EPA's own analysis, is very clear: EPA will make consumers pay more for electricity, shut down the local factory, and give Chinese firms a decisive advantage over America's manufacturers, which are struggling to meet the agency's bureaucratic mandates.

"The irony of EPA's agenda is that, along with higher costs, it will fail to provide the American people with meaningful environmental benefits. In some cases, it will actually impose environmental harm, as EPA's ever-increasing mandates shift production to China, where technology and standards don't measure up to our own.

"Our task ahead is to bring balance back to federal clean air policy, so that economic growth, job creation, and environmental progress can coexist, rather than be in conflict with each other."

U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.): "The regulatory obligations under the Obama administration's EPA are set to kick the legs out from an already limping economy. It will be almost impossible for Congress to compensate for the jobs that will be lost under the regulatory burden of an ambitious and ever-growing EPA bureaucratic scheme that is crushing every sector of American business."

U.S. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo): "When we ask 'Where are the jobs?' this report answers that by showing how the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is killing American jobs and sending them overseas."

U.S. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio): "During my tenure on the Senate EPW Committee, I have worked hard to enact common sense environment and energy policies that protect our environment while enhancing our economic competitiveness. Time after time, these efforts have been met by firm resistance from environmental zealots and an out-of-touch federal bureaucracy.

"Now, when America families are struggling under the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, EPA has launched an aggressive campaign of regulations, red tape and backdoor energy taxes that will undercut our efforts to create jobs and further erode America's global competitiveness. We should be doing everything we can to create jobs and grow our economy - that includes stopping unelected bureaucrats from raising energy costs and using regulatory red tape to stifle our economy. We must put our nation's environment and energy policy back into Congress' hands."

Source:  Email and EPW Blog

U.S. (Obama Administration) Saw Drill Ban Killing Many Jobs

Whoever is doing headlines needs to get a clue that they should tell it like it is -- Obama Administration is what should have been used instead of US because that is factual. As for 23,000 jobs cost during the moratorium, would bet that is a very low number considering the number of rigs in the Gulf. I would hazard to guess that Louisiana and Texas people would be disagreeing with the number as well.

The Obama Administration is overruled by a federal judge and still continues to keep the moratorium in place. Does Obama want to tank domestic oil production in favor of his Muslim friends in the Middle East or dictators in South America?

Obama's hatred toward the oil and gas producers is very telling. Guess they didn't give him enough campaign donations during the 2008 campaign to get on his good side because with him it is all about fundraising which is the one thing he seems to enjoy doing. He will not take responsibility for anything -- always has to blame someone else -- now it is the Congress under full Democrat leadership.

U.S. Saw Drill Ban Killing Many Jobs
By STEPHEN POWER And LESLIE EATON

Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn't trust the industry's safety equipment and the government's own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.

Marcia McNutt, an Obama administration science adviser, commented on the corporate culture of BP in a memo sent to Michael Bromwich, the administration's new top offshore oil exploration regulator, on June 28.
.Critics of the moratorium, including Gulf Coast political figures and oil-industry leaders, have said it is crippling the region's economy, and some have called on the administration to make public its economic analysis. A federal judge who in June threw out an earlier six-month moratorium faulted the administration for playing down the economic effects.

After his action, administration officials considered alternatives and weighed the economic costs, the newly released documents show. The Justice Department filed them in a New Orleans court this week, in response to the latest round of litigation over the moratorium.

Spanning more than 27,000 pages, they provide an unusually detailed look at the debate about how to respond to legal and political opposition to the moratorium.

They show the new top regulator or offshore oil exploration, Michael Bromwich, told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that a six-month deepwater-drilling halt would result in "lost direct employment" affecting approximately 9,450 workers and "lost jobs from indirect and induced effects" affecting about 13,797 more. The July 10 memo cited an analysis by Mr. Bromwich's agency that assumed direct employment on affected rigs would "resume normally once the rigs resume operations."

Read More at: Wall Street Journal

As Oil Washes on Shore in Alabama and Florida, Yet Another Federal Agency Joins Swarm of Spill Probes -- Who is in Charge?

A child pokes a stick into some oil that came ashore on the beach at Gulf Shores, Ala., on Friday, June 4, 2010. Oil began to be sighted on the beaches as it washed ashore from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
________

Day 69 and oil from the BP Horizon oil well disaster is now washing up on Alabama at Gulf Shores and Florida beaches at Pensacola. These are some of the most beautiful beaches in the Gulf being contaminated by oil which is still leaking from the BP Horizon well as they have not been able to capture all the oil after 69 days. How much is leaking? Who knows as the reports are all over the place since it doesn't seem like anyone is really in charge of this disaster.

The United States has access to over 2,000 skimmers to vacuum up the oil as reported by Senator LeMieux (R-FL) (see right hand column of DfS for his report), but Obama has stated they need to stay where they are at in case of another spill. How stupid is that? How many skimmers does the Obama Administration have in the Gulf? Twenty -- yes that is right 20 out of over 2,000 are all the skimmers that are in the Gulf working to vacuum up the oil. That is not only incompetence but negligence on the part of this Obama Administration.

While we have only 20 skimmers in the Gulf out of over 2,000, Obama is yucking it up at the G-8 conference while oil is now washing ashore in Gulf Shores, Alabama, and Pensacola, Florida.


The question of the day is if he is going to be playing golf this weekend as well -- probably go golfing when he gets back on Sunday from Canada.

When you look at these groups investigating the BP Gulf Oil Disaster, you really do have to ask yourself 'Who is in charge?' Since the Minerals Management Office was lax in safety inspections for BP and other items surrounding this BP oil well, we are not sure that they should be involved in the investigation but maybe should be part of those being investigated. Minerals Management Office might be an agency that should be looked at to be disbanded after their incompetence over the years and scandals surrounding the members of the office.

We believe the idea from former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) to have a board similar to the National Transportation and Safety Board is worthy of consideration and the best idea we have heard.

The National Transportation Safety Board was established in 1967 to conduct independent investigations of all civil aviation accidents in the United States and major accidents in the other modes of transportation. It is not part of the Department of Transportation, nor organizationally affiliated with any of DOT's modal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. The Safety Board has no regulatory or enforcement powers.

To ensure that Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety, the Board's analysis of factual information and its determination of probable cause cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law.

When we look at the Obama Commission, we cringe as there are no experts in Petroleum Engineering, but we have people who are against off shore drilling and the oil and gas industry on the Commission. This Presidential Commission looking into the BP Disaster may be one of the worst and most biased ever. Being headed by former Senator Graham of Florida who opposes off shore oil drilling doesn't give us much confidence either. Looks to us like it is a stacked board to get the results that Obama wants.

If it wasn't bad enough with the oil still leaking, we have Interior Secretary Salazar who lied about the results from his committee on off shore drilling. They were to advise President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and are are now accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose. See Experts Say White House 'Misrepresented' Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium for more details. That was no 'Misrepresented' it was outright lying by Salazar who should have been fired but since he does the bidding of Obama that won't be happening.

Because of Salazar lying about what previous experts said which a Federal Judge recognized in overturning the moratorium, the Interior Department has no business investigating anything about this BP Deep Horizon Oil Disaster. Salazar is willing to kill the economy of the Gulf Coast with his lies about the experts in order to issue a moratorium. Why does Obama want to kill the economies of Gulf Coast States and drive petroleum companies out of the Gulf with a moratorium? If that question can be answered, the reason for the stalling by Obama and his people on this disaster may also be answered.

At this point in time there is no board or commission that is run by the Obama Administration most Americans would trust. An investigative board should be comprised of people who actually understand oil drilling in the deep water of the Gulf not a bunch of environmentalists who hate oil and gas to start with not to mention offshore drilling.

My home sits several miles from one of the premier petroleum schools in America, Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering at The University of Oklahoma. This school has world renown experts with experience in offshore drilling and a new facility dealing with oil drilling. Will Obama ask OU for advice -- probably not as it is part of Red State America even though President Boren supported Obama at one time.

Either Obama and his Administration are the most inept group ever to be in office or they are stalling on purpose to make sure off shore drilling in the Gulf is curtailed so we can be more dependent on oil from Obama's friends in the Arab world and from George Soros and Petrobaus. The stalling started with not accepting immediate help from foreign countries and other oil companies. Now Obama is only sending 20 out of 2000 skimmers into the Gulf to vacuum the oil to keep it from hitting the beaches which is not working as oil is spreading to more Alabama and Florida due to lack of skimmers. For weeks Obama and his Administration have continually put roadblocks in the way of Governor Jindal who has been trying to save the Louisiana beaches and marshlands. To top everything off when Obama decided to name a Commission, he filled it with a with a group of anti oil and gas production members with no expert petroleum engineers allowed.

These are only a few of the items where Obama and his Administration have been negligent for days on end. There are many more that have made no sense. All of them together add up to negligence on the part of Obama and his Administration -- we would like to see charges of criminal negligence filed but we are not holding our breath.

Read about these Commissions and ask yourself -- WHO IS IN CHARGE?

Yet Another Federal Agency Joins Swarm of Spill Probes

Laura Parker ContributorAOL News

(June 25) -- When a little-known federal agency with just 14 investigators joined the growing list of government probes into the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it renewed cries from the Gulf of Mexico -- and beyond -- that no one seems to be in charge.

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's sleuthing brings the count of federal investigations to six -- and that's not counting the probes under way by a half-dozen congressional committees. Or the investigation being conducted by Robert Bea, a University of California, Berkeley, engineering professor who has assembled a 66-member team to assist the various investigative efforts. "It's hard to see who's in charge. The answer is: nobody," said Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission's investigation into the 2001 terrorist attacks. "The president can't control Congress. He can't control BP. He can't control the states, which are doing their own investigations. All he can control is what the executive branch is doing."

The inquiry by the chemical safety board, an independent agency, follows those launched by the Justice Department; the Interior Department; the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service, working jointly; and President Barack Obama's seven-member special commission.

"I would have preferred one central investigation by the federal government, or even one by the executive branch," said Slade Gorton, a two-term Republican senator from Washington state and a member of the 9/11 Commission. Gorton also served on a special panel headed by former Secretary of State James Baker that investigated the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery that killed 15 workers. The report, published in 2007, harshly criticized BP for lax safety.

"We had 11 members, seven of whom were industrial safety experts," said Gorton, who singles out Obama's presidential commission as lacking in technical expertise. "We had people with no agenda to start with."

Peter Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, thinks the gulf oil spill reinforces the need for an independent investigative agency patterned on the NTSB. This super-agency would investigate not only oil spills, but also other disasters such as the West Virginia coal mine explosion that killed 29 miners last month.

"We've got so many investigations of the spill going on, the public quite rightly can ask, what agendas are at play behind each one of these?" Goelz said. "In the NTSB, we have a model that not only works from a technical standpoint, but one that the various constituencies believe in."Despite the chaos inherent in multiple investigations, however, Hamilton said the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

"You have a better chance of getting to the bottom of things," he said. "You have a better chance of ending up with the whole picture than if you have a single agency doing the whole investigation."

A scorecard to the probes under way so far:

Joint Coast Guard/Minerals Management Service

A public hearing resumes July 19 before a six-member panel of Coast Guard and MMS officials assembled in a New Orleans airport hotel meeting room. Last month, 37 witnesses were called to describe the April 20 explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. In the coming session, the panel will look into the decision-making aboard the rig.

So far, the hearing has produced the clearest picture so far of what happened on the Deepwater Horizon. But the proceedings are not without complications:

Robert Kaluza, one of BP's top officials on the rig, declined to testify, citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

In addition, the panel's public questioning of witnesses has come in for criticism from the Interior Department's acting inspector general, Mary Kendall. Because the MMS lacked clear guidelines for conducting accident investigations (they are summed up in a scant five paragraphs of regulations), the Coast Guard's more substantial procedures are guiding the probe. The Coast Guard rules "are comprehensive," Kendall told a House committee, "but in my view, completely backwards, gathering evidence via public hearing, rather than developing evidence to culminate in a public forum.

"The Justice DepartmentAlways wary of competing investigations, where witnesses may give contradictory statements, prosecutors and defense attorneys prefer to work in a more controlled setting. That's not going to happen in this case.

Another potential headache for prosecutors is the MMS's partnership with the Coast Guard in investigating the cause of the disaster -- as well as the MMS's role leading up to the disaster. According to testimony at the joint hearing in Louisiana, the minerals agency approved BP's plan for the well that blew out and failed to ask to see relevant documents that BP was required to provide to the government. The civil investigation is proceeding under the direction of Bruce Gelber, who heads the environmental enforcement section.

Determining how much oil has been spilled is key: Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, fines could range from $1,000 per barrel of oil spill up to $4,300 per barrel if a federal judge finds that the spill occurred because of gross negligence.

The Presidential Commission

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board took just seven months to investigate the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia over Texas. But the presidential commission examining the oil spill will not meet until mid-July and may not issue a report until next year.

Chaired by former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat, and William Reilly, a Republican, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under the elder President George Bush, the panel is already drawing fire for being more political than neutral.

One panel member, Frances Beinecke, president of the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, has blogged about "America's addiction to oil" and urged a ban on offshore drilling.

Graham, who also served as Florida's governor, worked for years to prevent drilling off Florida's coast.

The Interior Department

Immediately after the spill, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asked a panel of seven scientists to report on drilling safety within 30 days. After the finished 38-page report ended up at the center of the court fight over Obama's six-month drilling moratorium, panel members said Salazar had misinterpreted their report and that they did not argue for a blanket moratorium.

Meanwhile, on May 11, Salazar asked the National Academy of Engineering to help determine the cause of the explosion, fire and spill by providing "a fresh set of eyes." Molly Galvin, an NAE spokeswoman, said the engineers will examine the technology and performance of the Deepwater Horizon's blowout preventer and make recommendations aimed at avoiding future spills. That panel will send an interim report to Salazar and the Coast Guard and the presidential commission in October, and deliver a final report next June.

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

The tiny agency, with 14 staff investigators, became involved after House Energy Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked it to investigate the spill. The board has solid background on BP, having spent nearly two years probing the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery. In the end it cited cost-cutting, a lax safety culture and production pressure from BP executives as factors in causing the accident. The board also found "striking similarities" between the refinery explosion and a 2006 BP pipeline break at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, that leaked 4,800 barrels.

But the board also lacks cash. Chairman John Bresland warned in a letter to Waxman that the agency had spent $2.5 million investigating Texas City. The Deepwater Horizon investigation presents "an even higher level of cost and complexity," Bresland said.

Source: AOL News

BREAKING NEWS ALERT: NY Times -- Judge Blocks Obama's Moratorium on Deep-Water Oil Drilling

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Tue, June 22, 2010 -- 2:09 PM ET

Judge Blocks Obama's Moratorium on Deep-Water Oil Drilling

A.P. reports A federal judge in New Orleans issued an injunction against a six-month moratorium on new deep-water oil and gas drilling projects that was imposed by the Obama administration after an explosion on a drilling rig led to a vast oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Associated Press reported.

The White House said the administration would appeal the ruling.

Ruling in favor of oilfield services companies whose business suffered under the moratorium, District Judge Martin Feldmansaid that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium, and instead merely seemed to assume that one rig failure meant all deep-water drillingposed an imminent danger.Read

More: NY Times