---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nancy Rauch)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BIOSPH-L List Owner)
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nancy Rauch)
Date: 95-03-23 23:14:38 EST
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 12:01:36
Subject: Scorched Earth
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scorched Earth: Eight Days of Environmental Destruction
Nothing is more dangerous or unfair than a sneak attack.
But that is exactly what happened when the House of
Representatives passed the "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement
Act," H.R. 9, from the Contract With America. Even though the
word "environment" does not appear in the Contract, this bill is
a direct assault on American's right to a clean and safe
environment.
Under the guise of "regulatory reform," the House recently
launched an unprecedented assault on our environmental safety
net. The regulatory moratorium, risk assessment, and takings
bills that passed over an eight day period would undo 25 years of
environmental protection. This attack was in-part orchestrated by
corporate polluters who would benefit from weakened protections
from smog, dioxin, lead and other poisons.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS REDUCED POLLUTION, BUT THREATS REMAIN
In response to Earth Day 1970, Congress passed landmark
environmental protection laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.
These and other programs dramatically reduced urban smog,
eliminated flammable rivers, improved tap water, slashed lead
poisoning, and saved the bald eagle and other species from
extinction.
But many public health and environmental threats remain:
* One hundred million Americans still live in areas with
dirty air.
* Every year, nearly one million people get sick and 900 die
from drinking contaminated tap water.
* Half of our nation's lakes are unfit for fishing or
swimming.
* Airborne mercury emissions are contaminating the northeast
and Great Lakes.
* One quarter of the world's species could be lost within
the next fifty years.
CONTRACT WOULD UNDO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The Contract With America agenda moves backward, not
forward, on solving environmental problems. The three pronged
attack on the environment was encompassed in the following bills
from the Contract, and was passed by the House between February
24th to March 3rd. These bills would benefit corporate polluters
while reducing or eliminating environmental protection programs
for almost everyone else.
* "The Regulatory Transition Act", H.R. 450, is a euphemism for a
moratorium on federal agencies issuing rules to protect human
health and the environment. It is retroactive to November 20,
1994, and would expire on December 31, 1995.
Efforts to exempt meat and water safety programs from the
one year delay were defeated. However, the House did exempt the
issuance of regulations necessary for duck hunting season. Rep.
Gerald Kleczka D-WI noted that "It's a sad day when we put ducks
above water safety in this country."
* "The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act", H.R. 1022 would
require complex risk assessment and cost-benefit studies of most
new public health and environmental protection programs before
they would take effect. The bill would require bureaucrats to
attempt to quantify the harm caused by a particular chemical or
pollutant, and the economic benefits of preventing illness
related to exposure to these contaminants.
* "The Private Property Rights Act", H.R. 925 is a "takings"
bill. It would require the government to compensate land owners
before they comply with laws to protect wetlands and endangered
species, and with the swampbuster program in the farm bill.
Taxpayers would have to pay land speculators not to destroy all
of the wetlands or endangered species habitat on their land. A
giant new bureaucracy would be required to conduct the
assessments and provide compensation to land owners.
Dan Gordon, a real estate developer, wrote in the New York
Times:
"Wetlands laws protect property values by keeping
communities attractive and by buffering floods...Under the new
anti-regulation agenda, homeowners' property values are
threatened....So called property rights bills would not protect
property but simply transfer control of property values from
homeowners to large owners of undeveloped land." (March 15, 1995)
H.R. 1022 and H.R. 925 were combined with other pro-special
interest provisions into "The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement
Act," H.R. 9.
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA IS A SNEAK ATTACK ON ENVIRONMENT
Nowhere in the Contract or these bills do their proponents
tell the American people that these bills would halt efforts to
protect public health. For instance:
* The regulatory moratorium would prevent EPA from
finalizing a rule that would require water suppliers to test
for cryptosporidium, the water borne parasite that killed
over 100 people in Milwaukee in 1993, and 19 people in Las
Vegas in 1994
* It would block an inspection program to detect E-coli
bacteria in meat, which causes 500 deaths and 20,000
illnesses annually.
* One of the most comprehensive studies of air pollution and
health determined that the risk of death in cities with the
dirtiest air can be 15% higher than in cities with fewer
fine particles from motor vehicles and power plants. It
would take years for EPA to implement a program to reduce
this threat because of the risk studies and inevitable law
suits that would result from the risk assessment bill.
Dr. Phillip Landrigan of Mount Sinai Medical Center said,
"This data makes an airtight case that we need a stronger federal
health standard to control pollution." (New York Times, March
10, 1995)
Dr. Landrigan also noted that the new Congress might well
stop such a clean air standard. He said that the risk assessment
bill would prevent such a program from being put in place. (ibid)
These are just several examples of the deadly impacts of the
stealth attack launched on our health and safety by the House of
Representatives.
RISK BILL CREATES RED TAPE AND LAW SUITS
Proponents of these bills claim that they are designed to
reduce red tape and costs, while maintaining environmental
protection standards. Nothing could be further from the truth.
These bills would require massive new bureaucracy and federal
spending, while halting environmental protection efforts.
For instance, EPA estimates that it would take nearly 1,000
new bureaucrats and $220 million to complete all the studies
required by the risk provisions. And there are 60 different
places where companies can bring lawsuits to halt environmental
protection programs. The takings bill, too, would cost taxpayers
money. These are job creation bills for lawyers and bureaucrats.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSAULT A SPECIAL INTEREST BONANZA
The Washington Post reports that the assault on
environmental protection was carefully crafted by Rep. Tom DeLay
R-TX, the House Majority Whip, and special interests that benefit
from rolled-back rules. These same companies also gave campaign
cash to DeLay in his effort to get elected to the third highest
position in the House leadership.
"Rep. DeLay makes companies full partners in the
[deregulation] movement....As the measure progressed, the roles
of legislator and lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants
guided industry supporters in an ad hoc group...[called] Project
Relief...a corporate alliance with a half-million dollar
communications budget.
"He [DeLay] knew that the best way to build up chits was to
raise campaign funds for other candidates...He turned to his
network of business friends and lobbyists. 'I sometimes overly
prevailed' on these allies, DeLay said...In adding up
contributions he had solicited for others, DeLay said, he lost
count at about $2 million." (March 12, 1995)
Project Relief was organized by Rep. DeLay and industry
lobbyists to roll back health and safety programs. Its 350
member industries include the National American Wholesale Grocers
Association, National Beer Wholesalers, Chemical Manufacturers
Association, Independent Insurance Agents, drug and construction
companies, National Association of Realtors, and other corporate
interests. The Post found that DeLay recruited lobbyists to
participate in the anti-environment Project Relief and help him
with his fund raising. The Environmental Working Group
determined that 115 political action committees associated with
members of Project Relief contributed over $10.3 million to
members of the House in 1993-94. Rep. DeLay received over
$38,000 in 1994 alone.
MEMBERS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR VOTES
Many representatives of both parties spoke against these
deadly bills, including Reps. Dingell D-MI, Waxman D-CA, Boehlert
R-NY, and Porter R-IL. Unfortunately, many more voted for them,
so these scorched earth proposals are currently pending in the
Senate.
It is up to every American to let their elected officials
know that they oppose this "Polluters' Bill of Rights" that would
roll back 25 years of environmental progress. Instead, we should
urge our Senators and Representatives to support the
Environmental Bill of Rights and the 25 point Earth Day Action
Agenda to ensure a safe and healthy environment.
Scorched Earth Votes
1. Final passage of the "Regulatory Transition Act," H.R. 450.
H.R. 450 would establish a moratorium on the issuance of
federal rules to protect public health and the environment (and
other rules). For instance, H.R. 450 would prevent EPA from
finalizing a rule that would require water suppliers to test for
cryptosporidium, the water borne parasite that killed over 100
people in Milwaukee in 1993. The bill would also block an
inspection program to detect E-coli bacteria in meat, which
causes 500 deaths and 20,000 illnesses per year. It is
retroactive to November 20, 1994, and would expire on December
31, 1995.
The bill passed 276-146. NO was the pro-environment vote.
2-24-95
The Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act, H.R. 1022
This bill would require lengthy, complicated risk assessment
and cost-benefit studies before most new public health and
environmental protection programs would take effect. The bill
would require bureaucrats to attempt to quantify the harm caused
by a particular chemical or pollutant. EPA estimates that it
would take 1,000 new bureaucrats and $220 million to conduct all
of these risk studies.
Once the study is completed, it must be reviewed by a panel
of scientists, which can include people from companies with an
economic stake in the rule. There are at least 60 points in the
process where dissatisfied companies can sue to block the public
health rule.
The cost-benefit provision attempts to weigh the easy-to-
calculate clean up costs against the difficult to measure
benefits of environmental protection. In effect, the bill would
make it nearly impossible to address health threats, including
contaminated food or water, smog, and other problems.
2. Undoing Existing Environmental Laws
Reps. Barton R-TX, Tauzin D-LA, and Crapo R-ID offered an
amendment to H.R. 1022 that would have allowed companies to
petition EPA to require risk assessments of existing clean air,
clean water and other long standing environmental rules. (H.R.
1022 only applied to new rules.)
The amendment was rejected 206-220. NO was the pro-
environment vote. 2-28-95
3. Overriding existing environmental Laws
Rep. Boehlert R-NY offered an amendment to H.R. 1022 that
would have removed the requirement that the results of a rule's
cost-benefit analysis must supersede existing law. Under H.R.
1022, if the easy to calculate costs out weigh the difficult to
measure benefits to implement a health standard in the Clean Air
Act, then the standard can be ignored. In other words, a cost-
benefit study by some bureaucrats could void a health standard
already enacted into law.
The amendment was rejected 181-238. YES was the pro-
environment vote. 2-28-95
4. Final passage of the risk assessment bill
Passage of the bill to require federal agencies to conduct a
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for nearly every new
health and environmental protection program. A cost-benefit
analysis would supersede existing law.
The bill passed 286-141. NO was the pro-environment vote. 2-
28-95
5. Final passage of the "Private Property Rights Act", H.R. 925
The Private Property Rights Act is a "takings" bill. It
would require the government to compensate land owners before
they comply with wetlands protection, endangered species, or
swampbuster (a wetlands protection program in the farm bill)
laws. It would also affect western water rights on federal
lands. Taxpayers would have to pay land speculators not to
destroy all of the wetlands or endangered species habitat on
their land.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution requires the
government to compensate landowners if it takes all of their
private property for a public purpose. The government, however,
can also reasonably regulate bad neighbors who, by filling up
their wetlands, causes flooding on their neighbors' property.
Under this bill, land owners who claimed that their property was
devalued by 20% from wetlands or endangered species protection
would be entitled to compensation from the tax payers. A giant
new bureaucracy would be required to conduct the assessments and
provide the compensation to land owners.
The bill passed 278-147. NO was the pro-environment vote.
3-3-95.
6. Final Passage of the "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act",
H.R. 9
This bill combined the final versions of the risk
assessment, takings, and other pro special interest provisions
from so-called regulatory reform bills into one bill. It is the
most anti-environment bill ever passed by the House of
Representatives.
The bill passed 279-138. NO was the pro-environment vote.
3-3-95.
---end of fwd---
Cheers,
...Nancy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy V. Rauch
Sierra Club PA Chapter Conservation Co-Chair
INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards."
-- Soren Kierkegaard
