Partnerships Help Increase Availability and Use of Soy Biodiesel to Diesel Users

ST. LOUIS (April 4, 2012) - U.S. biodiesel production reached an all-time record in 2011, and the United Soybean Board (USB) and soy checkoff want to help it repeat that feat in 2012.

As part of a larger strategy to promote soy biodiesel's benefits among diesel users, the checkoff will once again co-sponsor the National Tractor Pullers Association (NTPA) season of approximately 80 tractor pulls across the United States. The checkoff partners with the NTPA to increase biodiesel availability and use among pulling fans, many of whom work in the agricultural and trucking sectors.

"Pulling tractors perform so well on biodiesel, it's a perfect way to show farmers biodiesel's benefits," says USB Communications Chair Jimmy Sneed, a soybean farmer from Hernando, Miss. "It's important to remind farmers that using soybean oil for biodiesel is one of the components that determines the value of each bushel we grow. It makes sense for soybean farmers to use their own products and promote biodiesel."

Under the co-sponsorship, tractors in the NTPA's Light Pro Stock division will run on biodiesel. So these pullers will put biodiesel to the test all season long.

According to millions of miles of checkoff-funded testing, biodiesel can stand up to those tests. It offers excellent horsepower, mileage, cetane and lubricity. And, since it can be made from U.S. soybean oil, it's the only diesel fuel that can help declare freedom from foreign oil.

Check the NTPA schedule to find out if Light Pro Stock "Powered by Biodiesel" hooks will be in your area.

The soy checkoff also established other partnerships to promote biodiesel. Later this year, the checkoff will sponsor the National Truck Driving Championships, a trucking competition that attracts tens of thousands of representatives from that industry. Additionally, the checkoff partners with Clean Cities coalitions; assorted state, county and regional fairs; and the tractor pulls at the National Farm Machinery Show to promote the use of biodiesel, Bioheat® and other soy-based products.

The soy checkoff funds most of the biodiesel research and promotion efforts through the National Biodiesel Board to help increase the use of U.S. soybean oil. Soybean oil remains the dominant feedstock for U.S. biodiesel production.

These efforts helped push production of America's Advanced Biofuel to a record of nearly 1.1 million gallons in 2011. This exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's 800-million-gallon requirement and surpassed the industry's previous record of 690 million gallons set in 2008.

The 69 farmer-directors of USB oversee the investments of the soy checkoff to maximize profit opportunities for all U.S. soybean farmers. These volunteers invest and leverage checkoff funds to increase the value of U.S. soy meal and oil, to ensure U.S. soybean farmers and their customers have the freedom and infrastructure to operate, and to meet the needs of U.S. soy's customers. As stipulated in the federal Soybean Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has oversight responsibilities for USB and the soy checkoff.

For more information on the United Soybean Board, visit www.unitedsoybean.org
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/UnitedSoybeanBoard
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/unitedsoy
View our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/user/UnitedSoybeanBoard

###

Jet Edison
RME Cafe @ River Music Experience (129 N Main St., Davenport, IA)
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Price: tbd
Age: 21+
Doors: 8pm
Show: 9:30pm

Colorado-based progressive, improvisational act Jet Edison takes non-traditional approach to filling dance floor

Boulder-based quartet Jet Edison is anything but a traditional rock band. With its distinct blend of genre-mixing music, the rock-fusion band's members bring together individual influences from across the musical spectrum, creating original songs with strong technical musicianship, thought provoking lyrics and talented improvisation.

Through the use of different time signatures, tempos, dynamics and other musical elements, the music is as interesting as it is groovy and dance-friendly. Jet Edison strives to bring a different sound to the modern jam band scene.

Word of Jet Edison's captivating performances has spread rapidly, gaining them recognition across the Rocky Mountain region and beyond. The act, which is emerging as a nationally touring act, was nominated as Colorado's "Best Rock  Band- Jam/Improv" by Westword. The combination of intriguing original compositions, talent, and raw energy are giving audiences something to dance to all night long.

The members of Jet Edison met through mutual friends in Boulder. Originally, guitarist Max Kabat and bassist Adam Mason (who happen to share a birthday) were playing in the basement of a CU dorm with a mutual drummer friend. Keyboardist and trumpet player Phil Johnson said he ran into that friend on his way back from practicing at the music school, and was convinced to come meet his friends. Everyone hit it off and started talking about forming a band. Drummer Alex Johnson (no relation to Phil) was recommended by another friend later on, and was found to fit into the band perfectly.

Although the band's members say "rock-fusion" is a good description for their music, "we really touch on every genre that interests and influences us, which can be quite a lot," Alex said. "On stage, I'd say we bring a fun and energetic experience that can be 'imaginative' and make you think as well. I think we strive for that kind of thing; not just a good time but a great place to enjoy yourself, dance your pants off, and still think about the lyrics and the music. Using different time signatures, tempos, dynamics, etc. all makes the music interesting as well as groovy."

No matter the description, there is no denying the band puts on one powerful and dance-friendly show. "The live experience with Jet Edison is a high-energy musical experience with songs to suit a variety of listeners," Phil said. "Unlike other shows, Jet Edison provides the listener with a collective of varied sounds and rhythms, leaving almost no style untouched. Covers can range from classic rock anthems of the '60s and '70s to recent dance and pop numbers all with the range and flow reflecting the human experience."

Whatever it is the band plays, it's the audience's reaction to their music that motivates the musicians to play. "There is something that happens between musicians and the audience, and that is why I keep lugging gear all over the country and setting it up and tearing it down, because there's nothing like that energy," Alex said. "The vibe and emotions on peoples' faces in reaction to something you are helping to create is amazing. So, our intentions on stage are certainly to promote happiness and make people think and feel something that they don't usually get in their usual day-to-day through our music and occasionally, our antics."

It's an even deeper experience for Phil. "I think when we play together we hope the audience can all share in the unique experience of that 'moment,' the 'moment' when all the problems of people's day-to-day life melt away and they can relish in the sonic enjoyment that brings their conciseness into focus and frees their inhibitions. We also hope that our music can serve another purpose as art or self-expression bringing the listener into a more engaging level of thought."

Band members also all appreciate being a part of Colorado's music scene. "I came out west in large part because of the music scene. It's nothing short of flourishing here," Phil said. "There are so many music opportunities it seems like every bar in Boulder has music on at least one night a week. There are lots of bands competing for attention, but unlike bigger scenes, like NYC or L.A., everyone's really nice and genuine."

Being from Colorado seems to help the act away from home as well. "Being a band from here is awesome on the road, as a lot of people hold Colorado in high regard when it comes to music, so it can make us look cooler than we are before they even hear our music," Alex said. "At home it's a great and beautiful community of musicians and bands. We frequently play with other bands/musicians and act as subs for members, and talk shop too, it's really great. The only down side is there are a large number of bands that play in the same vein so you have to work hard and differentiate yourselves from the 'pack,' so to speak. That is a good thing though, too, as it keeps us writing more tunes, playing more shows, and always crafting our sound."

The band recorded and released a full-length album, Adopt a Highway, last year. Phil explained, "I'd never before tried such an ambitious recording project and even though the result is something very different then what Jet Edison sounds like today, I think it holds it's own." It is available on the band's website at www.jetedison.com.

According to Phil, the band plans to "buckle down and focus" on original music and its live show. "We need to write music that reflects are growth as a band and produces the energy and originality of our combined talents. This year we'd like to play 125 gigs, tour a lot more and even play a few festivals," he said.

With the band's abundant talent and overwhelming dedication to the music, there is nothing to keep them from accomplishing these goals, and more.

Jet Edison
Adam Mason: Electric Bass, Upright Bass, Vocals
Alex Johnson: Drums, Percussion, Vocals
Max Kabat: Electric Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Mandolin, Vocals
Phil Johnson: Keyboards, Hammond Organ, Trumpet, Vocals

MORE INFO:
http://www.jetedison.com
http://www.reverbnation.com/JetEdison
http://www.facebook.com/jetedison

WEST BRANCH, IOWA– The National Park Service will burn part of the 81-acre tallgrass prairie at Herbert Hoover National Historic Site during the week April 9 through April 13. Weather and safety considerations will determine the exact date and time of the fire. A specially trained National Park Service fire crew burned other parts of the prairie last May. Prescribed fires are an effective method of maintaining the grassland at Herbert Hoover NHS.

"With periodic burning, visitors may see over time healthier prairie grasses and a greater diversity of native wildflowers," said park superintendent Pete Swisher.

The National Park Service follows a scientific prescription for prairie burning. The agency uses a "burn plan" which describes the objectives of the fire, the fuel available in the prairie, the size and location of the prescribed burn, and the precise conditions for the fire. Safety considerations and smoke control play important roles in the burn plan. Although the prescribed fire crew will employ methods that minimize the amount of smoke produced, anyone suffering from asthma, emphysema, or lung disease, and living within one mile of the National Historic Site should contact the park at (319) 643-2541. If they leave their name, address, and telephone number, park staff will notify them in advance of the fire.

Herbert Hoover National Historic Site and the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum are in West Branch, Iowa at exit 254 off I-80. Both are open daily from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Central Time. Parking is limited so please allow extra time to find a parking space. For more information go online at www.nps.gov/heho or call (319) 643-2541.


Herbert Hoover National Historic Site
110 Parkside Drive
PO Box 607
West Branch, Iowa  52358

319 643-2541 phone
319 643-7864 fax
www.nps.gov/heho

Top Republican Judiciary Committee Members Question Obama Administration's Commitment to Medical Malpractice Reform

 

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch are concerned that the Obama administration has diverted tens of millions of dollars intended for research on malpractice reform to other forms of research.

 

In a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the members point to a September 9, 2009 address to Congress where President Obama announced an initiative to address the rising costs of health care associated with medical malpractice.

 

The members wrote, "Frivolous lawsuits, the high cost of malpractice insurance and excessive damages awards are dragging down our health care system...However, the AHRQ's (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) description of the research being funded (through the President's initiative) does not mention, much less emphasize, reforms to medical malpractice laws, as was clearly implied by the President's speech."

 

The letter specifically calls attention to the fact that none of the $23.2 million awarded has gone to researching or implementing "traditional" medical malpractice reforms and that it appears that all of the research funded by the AHRQ is aimed at proving the obvious: as the number of adverse events declines, the number of malpractice lawsuits also declines.

 

The letter goes on to ask questions about why the grant program has not done what the President publicly committed to do with the money, which is to try to move forward on medical malpractice reform.  It also asks for an accounting and justification of the way that the money has been spent.

 

Here is a copy of the text of the letter to Sebelius.

 

April 3, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20201

 

Dear Secretary Sebelius:

 

We are writing to express our concerns with the Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning grants being funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

 

On September 9, 2009, President Obama, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on health care, directed you to move forward on an initiative aimed at reducing health care costs.  Specifically, he stated:

..., many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.  So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.  I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues.  It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

(Emphasis added).

On June 11, 2010, pursuant to the President's orders, the HHS, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), awarded $23.2 million to fund demonstration and planning projects.  The AHRQ's press release confirmed that the "grants [we]re part of the patient safety and medical liability initiative that President Obama announced during a September 9, 2009, address to a joint session of Congress."[1] Specifically, the AHRQ has funded seven demonstration grants for a total amount of $19.7 million and 13 planning grants for a total amount of $3.5 million.  The demonstration projects are scheduled to take three years to complete and the planning projects are scheduled to take one year to complete.  According to the AHRQ, the projects are supposed to allow States and health care systems to develop, implement and evaluate medical liability models that "(1) put patient safety first and work to reduce preventable injuries; (2) foster better communication between doctors and their patients; (3) ensure that patients are compensated in a fair and timely manner for medical injuries, while also reducing the incidence of frivolous lawsuits; and (4) reduce liability premiums."[2]

Frivolous lawsuits, the high cost of malpractice insurance and excessive damages awards are dragging down our health care system.

 

The goal of "traditional" medical malpractice reforms is not to hinder meritorious lawsuits, but rather to reduce the incidence of frivolous lawsuits, inflated awards and inflated attorneys' fees.  Generally speaking, traditional malpractice reforms seek practical solutions to combatting frivolous lawsuits, such as caps on punitive damages, caps on noneconomic damages and limits on the percentage of an award that can be taken by a plaintiff's attorney under a contingency fee agreement.  Thus, traditional reforms are necessarily aimed at dealing with the medical system as it exists and influencing the behavior of lawyers and courts by altering legal parameters--substantive and procedural.  Correspondingly, research on traditional reforms should be aimed at assessing the effects of specific legal changes on claims, lawsuits, awards and settlements, either through mathematical models, simulated jury studies or real data.

 

However, the AHRQ's description of the research being funded does not mention, much less emphasize, reforms to medical malpractice laws, as was clearly implied by the President's speech.  Indeed, it does not appear that any of the entities that have received the $23.2 million in grants have the expertise necessary to examine the effects of changes in substantive legal standards and procedural rules on the rate of malpractice claims, lawsuits, and awards.

 

President Obama's September 9, 2009 speech included a reference to "demonstration projects" considered during President George W. Bush's administration.  The day after the President's speech, Tevi Troy, who served as the Deputy Secretary of the HHS, during the Bush Administration, responded to President's Obama's statement.[3] Mr. Troy explained the nature of the demonstration projects considered during the Bush administration.  In particular, he explained the limited purpose of those projects and the fact that they would not solve the crisis created by frivolous lawsuits.  Mr. Troy's article also made it clear that "reducing the incidence of costly and ineffective medical malpractice lawsuits was a high priority of the [Bush] administration."

 

The President's speech gave the clear impression that taxpayers' monies would be spent, in significant part, on projects related to "traditional" medical malpractice reforms.  Contrary to that clear impression, it appears that none of the $23.2 million awarded has

 

gone to researching or implementing "traditional" medical malpractice reforms.  In fact, it appears that all of the research funded by the AHRQ is aimed at proving the obvious:  as the number of adverse events declines, the number of malpractice lawsuits also declines.

 

We are concerned that these developments do not fulfill the President's commitment to move forward on medical malpractice reform.  Accordingly, please respond to the following requests for information:

 

1.      Explain how the HHS' spending $23.2 million on studying "nontraditional" liability reform fulfills the President's promise that his administration would examine a "range of ideas," including the "traditional" malpractice reforms noted above and advocated by Republican Members of Congress?

 

2.      Do you agree that the projects funded by the Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning grants are not researching "traditional" malpractice reform, but rather are exploring "nontraditional liability reforms"?[4] If you disagree, explain the basis for your disagreement in detail.  Also, identify which projects are researching "traditional" malpractice reforms and how much from the $23.2 million in grants is being spent on studying "traditional" malpractice reforms.

 

3.      Do you agree that the AHRQ is not the most qualified agency to undertake or oversee research related to "traditional" malpractice reforms?  If you disagree, explain in detail how the AHRQ is the most qualified agency within the federal government to undertake or oversee research related to "traditional" malpractice reforms.

 

4.      How, if at all, will the results of each of the 20 demonstration and planning projects directly help to reduce the incidence of frivolous lawsuits and reduce high malpractice insurance premiums, as represented by the AHRQ?  Also, if a project will have no direct impact on reducing frivolous lawsuits and insurance premiums expressly acknowledge that fact.

 

5.      Explain in detail how the results of each of the 20 Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning projects will directly benefit American taxpayers.  If American taxpayers will benefit from the results of these projects, when will those benefits be seen?

 

6.      Explain in detail how the results of each of the 20 projects will directly contribute to lowering health care costs, as stated by the President?

 

7.      Describe in detail how the HHS and/or the AHRQ will utilize the information generated by each of the 20 Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning projects?

 

8.      Is each of the 20 Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning projects unique or are they similar to previous studies?  If any of the current projects are similar to previous studies, explain the HHS's justification for funding that project or projects?

 

9.      When was it decided that the Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning grants would fund research of "nontraditional liability reforms," as opposed to "traditional" malpractice reforms?  Who made that decision?  If it was a group decision, identify all of the individuals who participated in the group.

 

10.  Did anyone other than an employee of the federal government participate (in any manner whatsoever) in the drafting of the requests for proposals issued in connection with the Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning grants?  If so, identify the individual(s) and the group he or she was representing.  Also, if applicable, set forth in detail the substance and nature of the individual's participation.

 

11.  Did anyone other than an employee of the federal government participate in the selection of any of the recipients of the Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning grants?  If so, identify the individual(s) and the group he or she was representing.  Also, if applicable, set forth in detail the substance and nature of each individual's participation.

 

12.  Is one of goals or purposes (official or unofficial) of the Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform Demonstration and Planning grants to produce studies that will discredit or counter "traditional" malpractice reforms?

 

13.  Is the HHS or any other agency of the federal government currently conducting, participating in or funding research, the (official or unofficial) purpose of which is to discredit or counter "traditional" malpractice reforms?  If so, set forth the details of each such project, including who will conduct the research and who will oversee it.

 

14.  In addition to the $23.2 million being spent on the demonstration and planning projects, another component of the initiative ordered by President Obama is an evaluation project.  JBA/RAND was awarded $2 million for the evaluation project.  According to the AHRQ, the $2 million has been "allocated to evaluate the overall knowledge that is gained from this initiative."[5]

 

(a)    Explain in detail the substance and goals of the evaluation project and explain why it is necessary.

 

(b)   Are salaried federal employees at the AHRQ or in another unit of the HHS capable of understanding and evaluating the results of the demonstration and planning projects?  If so, why weren't they assigned the task of conducting the evaluation project or its equivalent?  If they are not capable, explain how the HHS and the AHRQ will be able to work with any of the information generated by the projects.

 

(c)    How, if at all, will the results of the evaluation project directly benefit American taxpayers?  If American taxpayers will benefit from the results of the evaluation project, when will those benefits be seen?

 

If the HHS and/or the AHRQ possess documents relating to the subject matter of any of the foregoing questions, provide copies of those documents.

 

We ask that you provide written answers and documents by May 3, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

________________________       ________________________

Charles E. Grassley                       Lamar Smith

Ranking Member                         Chairman

Senate Judiciary Committee                      House Judiciary Committee

 

 

 

________________________      

Orrin G. Hatch                         

Ranking Member                        

Senate Finance Committee

 

 

[1] AHRQ Press Release, "HHS Announces Patient Safety and Medical Liability Demonstration Projects:

Funds Allocated to Develop, Implement, and Evaluate Patient Safety Approaches and Medical Liability Reform Models" (June 11, 2010) (available at http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2010/hhsliabawpr.htm).

2 Id.

3 Tevi Troy, "Med Mal Pal?," Critical Condition, National Review Online's Healthcare Blog (Sept. 10, 2009)(available at  http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/48345/med-mal-pal/tevi-troy).

4 See Allen Kachalia & Michelle M. Mello, New Directions in Medical Liability Reform, 364 N. Engl. J. Med. 1564 (Apr. 2011) (available at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1012821) (acknowledging the definition of "traditional" medical malpractice reforms and confirming that the AHRQ's demonstration and planning projects are studying "nontraditional liability reforms.").

5 Carolyn M. Clancy, AHRQ Commentary, "Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform: Putting the Patient First" (available at http://www.ahrq.gov/news/commentaries/comptsafty.htm).