EarthWINS Daily #3.118
3/17/98

Contents

1. A CLEAR View, Vol. 5, No. 4, 3/16/98, Legislative Issue

[To all who celebrate: Happy St. Patrick's Day!]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. A CLEAR View, Vol. 5, No. 4, 3/16/98, Legislative Issue

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:30:15 -0400
To: clear-view@ewg3.ewg.org
From: "CLEAR View Mailing List" <clear-view@ewg3.ewg.org>
Sender: Sara@ewg.org (Sara Savitt)

A CLEAR View, Legislative Issue
Volume 5 Number 4
March 16, 1998

Contents:
*1 The American Lands Sovereignty Act
*2 The Forage Improvement Act
*3 Clean Air Legislation
*4 King Cove Health And Safety Act of 1997
*5 Resources
*
*1 The American Lands Sovereignty Act
Although a small fringe element of the right, the anti-United Nations
faction of the environmental backlash has shown a surprising ability to
spread its message and inject its concerns into the mainstream of public
discourse.  Led by a small but skilled group of proponents, the anti-UN
fringe has aired its concerns on the community level at small meetings
across the country, and has also had its concerns form the basis of
legislation introduced by powerful members of Congress.  Today, it appears
likely that concerns over the role of the United Nations in the alleged
loss of national sovereignty and erosion of property rights and personal
liberties has formed a critical element of the environmental backlash.

A number of UN related environmental votes took place last year.  On June
15, the House voted to ban federal funding for the UN's World Heritage
Convention and Biosphere Reserve programs, two land-related programs that
are hated and feared by the anti-UN faction of the environmental backlash.
The vote prompted accusations that Republican leaders were pandering to the
"paranoid fears" of this faction.

Opponents of the funding ban "said the measure caters to conspiracists."
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) mockingly suggested that Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt was in on the UN plot, saying "Who does [Babbitt] work with?  He
clearly works with Bill Richardson, our ambassador to the UN.  What state
is he from?  New Mexico.  Think about it.  Where is Roswell?"
Environmentalists and congressional Democrats said the move "would severely
limit" future US participation in the preservation programs, which together
"convey 'world-class status" on 800 premier' nature preserves and cultural
attractions around the world.  The selection of a site under the programs
"does little more than bestow an honorary title."   (Joby Warrick,
_Washington Post_, 7/17, Greenwire, 7-17-1997).

Also last year, UN concerns played a role in the grassroots opposition that
grew up around President Clinton's American Heritage Rivers Initiative
(AHRI).  A fact sheet taken from the far-right American Policy Center was
distributed on the "land-use network," an e-mail bulletin board operated by
off-road vehicle enthusiasts with a strong anti-environmental prejudice.
The alert claimed that "Bill Clinton is charging ahead with a massive new
federal land grab called the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.  Once the
public statement period ends on August 20th, Clinton plans to sign an
Executive Order that will designate the first ten rivers for the program."

The alert went on to call the AHRI "nothing short of national zoning
controlled by an army of federal bureaucrats -- including the Dept. of
Defense...[that] will set up a new federal bureaucracy under a group of
river czars called 'River Navigators' [who] will have complete control of
every decision about the river in your town, from community development to
river traffic, to fishing, to your private river bank property."  The alert
charged that the AHRI "mandates aerial photography and satellite
surveillance to be used to police river use," and concluded with a warning:
"Don't be fooled.  This has nothing to do with environmental protection --
but everything to do with grabbing private property rights."  (APC web site
alert, distributed August 13, 1997, on landuse@off-road.com)

On June 10, 1997, Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) along with 11 other
colleagues filed H.R. 1842, "To terminate further development and
implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative."  The bill
states that no federal funds can be used to finance the AHRI or any other
similar program.  Chenoweth's bill prevents the president from creating
this program by presidential fiat.  The bill has 48 cosponsors, including
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) who stated that the AHRI is "just another example
of federal government intrusion, with a government knows best, one size
fits all approach."  The bill has been through several hearings in the
House Resources Committee.  (http://thomas.loc.gov/)

The main legislative expression of the anti-UN fervor is HR 901, introduced
last year by Rep. Don Young (R-AK).  On June 25, 1997, Rep Young
distributed a "Dear Colleague" letter with the headline in large, bold
type, "Is Boutro-Boutros Ghali Zoning Land In Your District?"  The letter,
which announced the introduction of Young's bill, blasted the UN Biosphere
Reserve program as a "United Nations experiment within sovereign U.S.
borders," promising that the "lid is about to come off on this One World
Zoning enterprise run by those champions of U.S. sovereignty at the White
House and the United Nations."

Political leaders have proven to be more than willing to pander to this
fringe element since the political payoffs far outweigh any disadvantages.
Rep. Young introduced the "American Land Sovereignty Act" to reign in what
he termed the growing power of foreign entities on US soil.  Young's bill
generated much more widespread support among the so-called "wise use"
element than any of the regulatory takings bills introduced in this
Congress.  Ray Cunio, one of the leaders in the debate in the Ozarks and a
member of the mining front group People for the West! testified in
Washington on behalf of the bill.

H.R. 901 Passed.  On October 8, 1997, H.R. 901, "The American Lands
Sovereignty Act" sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) passed the House by a
vote of  236-191, but not without a bitter, sometimes nasty battle.  H.R.
901 requires Congressional approval to designate lands as resent process
with the United Nations which requires no Congressional approval.  Further,
all UN biosphere regions now existing within the U.S. would be canceled by
the year 2001 unless re-designated by Congress.  In determining a site
under H.R. 901 the Department of Interior would be required to determine
whether a proposed World Heritage Site would adversely impact lands within
a 10 mile radius of the project.  Also, to qualify as a Biosphere Reserve
the site must be representative of a major biographic region and must have
a transitional zone with human activity, a buffer zone and protected core
zone.

H.R 901 is awaiting action in the Senate, where it has landed in Senator
Frank Mukowski's Environment and Natural Resources Committee.  Murkowski
(R-AK) has assigned the bill to the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Historic Preservation and Recreation.

Sovereignty International.  A number of leaders and organizations have
taken prominent roles in promoting the anti-United Nations sentiment in the
environmental backlash.  The most prominent of these is Sovereignty
International.

Sovereignty International was established in March, 1997, to promote
concern over the perceived erosion of U.S. sovereignty at the hands of
United Nations environmental policies.  Supporters of this idea have
doggedly worked to gain acceptance among mainstream conservatives and have
begun to succeed.  Once the exclusive domain of the militia and other hard
right factions, anti-UN sentiments and posturing have appeared in
newsletters and funding appeals of an increasing number of
anti-environmental organizations, and have become popular election fodder
for many a politician.

Sovereignty International is the brainchild of two long-time leaders in the
environmental backlash.

_Dr. Michael Coffman_.  A consultant and president of Environmental
Perspectives Inc., Coffman claims the mantle of authority on global
environmental initiatives.  He is a former employee of Champion
International and is viewed as an articulate spokesperson for the paper
industry.  Coffman is the Maine state director of the Alliance for America,
board member of Maine Conservation Rights Institute, and is a member of the
Council on National Policy, the secretive right wing policy salon.  Coffman
and several colleagues formed Sovereignty International in early 1997.

Coffman has made promotion of the anti-UN conspiracy theory his main stock
in trade during the past several years.  He is widely traveled, appearing
at virtually every major "wise use" event to make detailed presentations of
his theories.  Coffman sells books, videos and intricate colored maps as
part of his road show.  In addition to playing to the "wise use" circuit,
Coffman traveled the country in two John Birch Society-sponsored speaking
tours during 1997.

_Henry Lamb_.  Lamb is a vice-chair of the Environmental Stewardship
Foundation and a board member of the National Wilderness Institute (NWI), a
Washington DC-based organization which promotes the idea of free market
environmental protection.  NWI also attacks existing regulations using the
"junk science" approach, for instance criticizing the science used by the
Department of Interior to place threatened wildlife on the Endangered
Species list.

Lamb was the founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO)
in 1988.  Originally funded by the Land Improvement Contractors
Association, Lamb eventually separated ECO and moved the operations to his
home in Hollow Rock, TN.  There, Lamb compiled a list of over 500 "network"
organizations (though subsequent CLEAR research has discovered that the
affiliated groups were sometimes christened "members" without their
knowledge).  He also produces the ECO*Logic newsletter which details the
property rights struggle.  Over time, the property rights battle took on an
international flair as the newsletter began to report on international
conferences and forecasting the impact of U.N. sponsored initiatives.  Lamb
is a co-founder of Sovereignty International, and was active in Kyoto,
Japan, during the Conference of Parties to the Global Climate change treaty
negotiations in December, 1997.

*2 Grazing: The Forage Improvement Act
House Agriculture Committee Chair Bob Smith (R-OR) introduced HR 2493,
the Forage Improvement Act, on September 17, 1997.  After lobbying efforts
by The National Beef Cattlemen's Association, the Public Lands Council and
other grazing interests, the House passed the bill on October 30 by a
242-182 vote.  The bill is now in the Senate where Sens. Domenici (R-NM)
and Bingaman (D-NM) are actively pushing the measure.

H.R. 2493 has been referred to the Senate Energy Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources where Frank Murkowski (R-AK) is Chairman.
Hearings on the bill may be held this month.

According to Greenlines, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) met with
representatives of the livestock industry in January, and indicated
(according to the industry) that he would consider some amendments to the
Smith Bill to improve the bill from the industry's perspective.

Supporting the Forage Improvement Act is the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, a lobbying organization for ranchers who want to defend the
government subsidies they receive to graze their cattle on public lands.
NCBA has been meeting with key Senators to devise Senate strategy for
passage and discussing potential modifications and/or additions to the
House-passed bill.

The NCBA is a member of The Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO)
which was formed in 1988 as the grassroots wing of the Land Improvement
Contractors Association.  ECO was originally intended to function as the
networking and coordinating component of the anti-environmental movement.
ECO's directory includes over three hundred local groups that ECO claims
are networking on backlash and property rights issues.

Last year, the NCBA was behind an ad campaign that claimed to honor
ranchers for their environmental practices.  According to an ad by the
Natural Resources Defense Council, "readers of various newspapers around
the country saw a quarter page ad showing an idyllic scene of a fisherman
and some cows with a catchy Alice-in-Wonderland headline: 'Too bad cows
can't fish...Because they live by some really great streams.'  (from NRDC's
article "Something's Fishy About Those Cattlemen's Ads")

Using a similar spin, the NCBA announced the winner of the 1997
Environmental Stewardship Award by mass mailing a small white box embossed
with the words "Montana Rancher Robert Lee just won our Environmental
Stewardship Award.  To see the real winners you may need a pair of these."
Inside the box was a pair of (plastic) binoculars and a postcard featuring
a photo of grazing elk.  The postcard touts wildlife's "positive reactions"
to "prudent environmental stewardship."

What the ads don't say is that the Federal grazing program costs taxpayers
between $50 to $500 million annually and is, according to the U.S. General
Accounting Office, "responsible for 70 percent of the...damage to streams,
rivers, fish and other aquatic life, as well as wildlife on federally owned
lands."  A report by the Environmental Protection Agency a couple of years
ago said that riparian areas in the West on both private and public lands
are in the worst condition in history.   (From an interview of NRDC senior
attorney Johanna Wald.)

Enviros argue that the current grazing bill is bad for western National
Forests and Bureau of Land Management-administered public lands because it
will harm rangelands; subsidize ecologically damaging overgrazing through a
new "bargain basement" grazing fee formula; and limit public access to
public lands and hamper the ability of hunters, anglers, hikers and others
to participate in public lands management, and hamper agency efforts to
make sound and timely management decisions that will protect fish and
wildlife on public lands.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt last October sent a letter to
Representative Smith, stating the administration's objections to the
grazing bill as passed by the House.  Babbitt indicated he would recommend
the President veto the House-passed bill.   (Greenlines; National Wildlife
Federation; NRDC "The Gathering Storm"; Frontlines #12; National
Cattlemen's Beef Association website)

*3 Clean Air Legislation
Attempts to delay or block EPA's new clean air standards took a dramatic
turn March 4 when Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a critic of the standards, "won
unanimous Senate approval...of an amendment that actually would write them
into law." (Jim Myers, _Tulsa World_, 3/5/98)

Inhofe's S. Am 1687, added to the ISTEA bill ("Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997"), will require EPA to pay for air
monitoring equipment to determine if states and cities are meeting EPA's
air standards.

Just a few weeks ago, Inhofe had threatened to attach an amendment to ISTEA
that would appeal EPA's clean air standards.  According to the _Tulsa
World_, in explaining what appeared to be a U-turn, Inhofe said "his new
approach would provide more certainty to state and local governments on the
changes."  Brian Cohen of the Environmental Working Group, a critic of
Inhofe's previous move, expressed support for his latest.  "We are glad the
public's health won out in the end," Cohen said.

Last fall, Inhofe sought to thwart implementation of EPA's new regulations
by introducing S. 1084 ("The Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act of
1997"), which would have delayed putting the new standards into effect for
at least five years.  Later, he tried attaching the bill to President
Clinton's fast-track proposal but that effort failed.

_Additional bills._  In the face of strong opposition from
environmentalists and health advocates, Rep. Greenwood (R-PA) has abandoned
his effort to introduce a draft "compromise" bill addressing implementation
of the US EPA's new air-quality standards for ozone and particulates.  The
legislation would have incorporated comments Greenwood has received in
response to two earlier drafts (Greenwire, 11/10/97).  One draft, "written
last session in concert with industry, was dismissed out of hand by the
environmental community."  The other was based on an outline written by
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and environmental groups, but it "was shot down
last year by industry."

The industry-based Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC) is "very strongly
opposed" to Waxman's proposal.  AQSC Director Mike Mason said the draft
"doesn't offer any true delay of implementation and ... has some impossible
requirements."  Meanwhile, six major environmental groups on 1/27 wrote to
Greenwood, saying they "strongly object" to both drafts as a basis for
legislation (CongressDaily/A.M., 1/29).

AQSC was founded in 1996 by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
to thwart proposals to establish and implement new EPA clean air standards.
Its 600 members include the American Petroleum Institute, American
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Chevron, DuPont, and Geneva Steel.
Heading the coalition is former Bush presidential counsel C. Boyden Gray
and former Reagan EPA official Joseph Cannon.  Both work for Utah's Geneva
Steel, whose pollution was linked in a landmark 1992 study to
hospitalizations resulting from particulates in the air.

*4 "King Cove Health and Safety Act of 1997": Murkowski, Young Attempt to
Subvert Environmental Law Under Guise of Public Health

Sen. Frank Murkowski and Rep. Don Young (both R-AK)  are reportedly working
hard to bring the "King Cove Health and Safety Act of 1997" to a vote in
the near future.   Last year, identical bills (S1092 and HR2259) were
introduced to congressional committees, requesting a 30 million dollar
20-30 mile road be built through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to
connect the fishing village of King Cove (population approx. 800) to Cold
Bay (population 146).   Both villages are currently accessible only by air
or water, with Cold Bay serving as a regional air hub.

Murkowski and Young are counting on emotional appeals to carry the bill,
hoping their calculated invasion of a designated wilderness will be over-
looked.   The pair claim the lack of a road is a risk for medical
emergencies due to the difficult flying conditions  from King Cove, though
it is highly questionable as to whether the one-lane gravel road would
improve the situation.  (See the Audubon Society report, "The Golden Gravel
Road", available on the www for viable alternatives and a discussion of the
environmental impacts).

Last fall, President Clinton said he would veto the bill.  That comment
prompted Young to launch a familiar volley from the  anti-environmental
arsenal.  In a press release on September 10, 1997, Young stated, "I've
never been more disgusted with the federal government than I am right now.
This administration is willing to protect a small amount of land over the
safety  of human beings".

Beyond the needless destruction of pristine federally designated wilderness
and the typical hysterical anti-environmental rhetoric, most alarming are
the Congressmen's blatant attempts to circumvent environmental laws that
apply specifically to proposed roads through wilderness or refuge areas,
both now and in the future.  The question that must always be asked of
legislation originating from the Alaska's dirty duo, is "What is their
long-term goal?"  Eight hundred votes from the people of Clear Bay and King
Cove?

CLEAR dug a little further and found attached to the bill, "Provisions not
Applicable" and "Savings Provisions", which appear to set up a scenario
where future development could occur, or at least set up a precedent where
the same exemptions could be applied to more developmentally desirable
land.

The "Savings Provisions" language states that any protection of resources
that might be required "prior to any improvement to the right of way" shall
not be considered under the National Historic Preservation Act, Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or "any other law", meaning any
"improvements" would not have to meet any environmental standards.

Under "Provisions not Applicable," the bill specifically attempts to exempt
itself from:

*Alaska Native Claims Act, Section 22(g)  (43USC section 1621(g))
The land for the road would be procured in a land swap with the native King
Cove Corporation, who would then own the right of way through the Refuge.
Exempting the Act from this portion of the ANCA leaves the surface rights
and possible future development of the land open to the highest bidder if
the King Cove Corporation ever decides to sell their claim.  The Act
states, "If a patent is issued to any Village Corporation for land in the
National Wildlife  Refuge System, the patent shall reserve to the United
States the right of first refusal if the land is ever sold by the Village
Corporation" and that "such lands remain subject to the laws and
regulations governing use and development of such Refuge".

*Transportation Act (49USC section 303(c))
Requires the official consideration of "prudent and feasible
alternative(s)" to building a road through a refuge and requires efforts to
minimize impact if the road is built.  What is the motivation in trying to
squash legally required discussion of alternatives?

*Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16USC 3161 and seq.)
The broadest non-applicable provision is the wholesale dismissal of an
entire sub-chapter of USC Title 16 governing "Transportation and Utility
Systems in and Across and Access into, Conservation System Units", except
the provision which requires an environmental impact statement.   Language
included in this sub-chapter also mandates consideration of alternatives to
roadway, among other things.

Clearly the agenda is something other than helping the citizens of Kings
Cove with a new road.  These type of exemptions set dangerous precedents
for  designated wilderness in Alaska and elsewhere, as well as the road
itself being highly detrimental to the Izembek Refuge.

RESOURCES
GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network's (GREEN) publishes a weekly
report that tracks public lands issues: endangered species, public lands
grazing and hard-rock mining, Interior appropriations, and habitat-related
issues.  The report features an update of recent congressional or
administrative activity, recommended action for activists, "messages" that
are being used by the conservation community for public education and
outreach on the issues, and resources available to activists.

For information, contact: Roger Featherstone, GREEN Director; PO Box 40046;
Albuquerque, NM 87196-0046; (505) 277-8302  fax, (505) 277-5483;
rfeather@defenders.org; http://www.defenders.org/grnhome.html

Contributors:
        Sara Savitt, Editor
        Dan Barry, CLEAR Director
        Allison Daly, Grassroots Coordinator
        Emily Headen, Research Assistant

Permission to repost by electronic means (or reproduce in
other media) all or part of the attached report is granted
so long as the information is attributed to CLEAR.
Distribution within environmental organizations and
networks is encouraged.

Feel free to invite friends and colleagues to subscribe to
_A CLEAR View_ by encouraging them to send a message to:
<clear-view@ewg3.ewg.org> with the single
word "subscribe" in the subject line or body of the message.

Please visit our WWW homepage at <www.ewg.org>
where current and back issues of _A CLEAR View_
can be downloaded.  While you're there, check out CLEAR's
database of "wise use" organizations, individuals and
literature.

As always, send along your news and leads regarding
'wise use'-- you are our eyes and ears!
=================================================
CLEAR
Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research
1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC  20009
tel. 202-667-6982 = fax 202-232-2592 =
= e-mail: clear@ewg.org = www: http://www.ewg.org
=================================================
CLEAR provides grassroots and national
environmental advocates and organizations with
information about the vital importance of fair and
effective environmental policies in protecting
human health, natural resources, communities and
private property.  Through publications, research
and facts, CLEAR helps concerned citizens
understand and counter misinformation about
environmental policy and science and the impacts of
environmental law on the economy and private
property.

CLEAR depends on grassroots activists to keep us
informed of any articles, anti-environmental
events, success or horror stories about local,
regional and national resource and property rights
battles.
=================================================
CLEAR is a project of the Environmental Working
Group, a not-for- profit 501(c)(3) environmental
research and publishing organization based in
Washington, D.C.

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit
environmental research organization based in
Washington, D.C. Environmental Working Group is a
project of the Tides Center, a California Public
Benefit Corporation based in San Francisco that
provides administrative and program support
services to nonprofit programs and projects.

Back to top

Disclaimer

EarthWINS Daily is a project of EarthWINS.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, material in this issue of EarthWINS Daily is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **

The articles in EarthWINS Daily are PHOTOCOPIES for personal informational purposes--please seek reprint permission directly from the source listed. You are encouraged to utilize this information for personal campaign use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

If you distribute information contained in EarthWINS Daily, please:

(1) Copy the information in its exact form,
(2) Cite the author, publisher, and date of the information.
(3) Include this subscription information for EarthWINS Daily - 

To subscribe to EarthWINS Daily send an email to 
EarthWINS-Daily-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe to EarthWINS_Daily

EarthWINS P O Box 573 Shawano, WI 54166 Ph: 715-524-5998 FAX (call first): 715-524-9958 EarthWINS-Daily@earthwins.com www.earthwins.com

Please sign my guestbook

Back to top