2000 - the SIXTH YEAR of the Republican Party's SECRET War Against the Environment

The news on Congressional votes that is DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY CENSORED out of YOUR NEWSPAPER

1. An Overview of the Year 2000 . . . . . so far.

2. Environmental Votes in June 2000: Killing the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.

3. Environmental Votes of June 2000: Increased funding for National Forests from the Fossile Fuel R&D budget; funding from timber sales to wildlife management.

4. Environmental Votes of June 2000: The Battle over the Department of the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Managment Plan (ICBEMP)

5. Environmental Votes of June 2000: Clean Coal Technology and a Northeastern Home Heating Oil Reserve

6. Environmental Votes of June 2000: The Motion to Recommit the Interior Appropriations Bill with Instructions to change it and the Final Vote on the Interior Appropriations Bill.

7. Environmental Votes of June 2000: More Gutting of the Clean Air Act

8. Environmental Votes of June 2000: Another Attempt to Gut the Clean Air Act

9. Environmental Votes of June 2000: Arsenic in Drinking Water; the Removal of PCB Contaminates from rivers and other waters in the United States.

10. Environmental Votes of July 2000: Renewing of Grazing Permits without a prior environmental review.

11. Environmental Votes of July 2000 -- National Monuments

12. Environmental Votes of July 2000 -- Acreage - U.S. National Monuments

13. Environmental Votes of July 2000: Wildland Fire Management is considered a lower priority than Timber Sales.

14. Environmental Votes of July 2000: VAGUE and MISLEADING Language and SPECIFIC Language on the kinds of pesticide used for spraying in U.S. National Parks

Fellow Citizens:

The Second Session of the U.S. Congress began in January 2000 and still has several months to go. To date, I have been able to identify 19 votes in the House and the Senate on environmental matters. The President has not yet signed any of this legislation into law, but the votes still serve the purpose of identifying the pro-environment and anti-environment groups in both political bodies.

The key legislation in 2000 containing anti-environmental provisions are the FY2001 appropriations bills for the Interior Department (HR.4578), and for the Veterans Affairs Department and HUD (HR.4635). I can find no anti-environmental provisions in a search of the FY2001 appropriations bills for the Department of Transportation (HR.4475) and the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State (HR.4690), but I may have missed them.

In the Interior appropriations bill, I was able to identify 11 House votes and 4 Senate votes on the environment. Of these 15 VOTES in June and July, 2000, the environment WON OUT IN JUST TWO CASES. This first was an amendment for Clean Coal Technology in the House. In the second case, the Democrats (and a few Republicans) in the Senate were able to beat back Senator Nickles' attempt to stop President Clinton from creating more National Monuments. This vote occurred when Nickles tried to transfer the authority to create National Monuments from the President to the Congress. This pro-environment vote greatly disappointed U.S. and foreign mining corporations who were eager to exploit multi-billion dollar mineral resources owned by the American people without, of course, paying the full market value for access to those mineral resources.

Big Timber, Big Oil, and the Big Chemical polluters were successful in almost all of the other votes. Who says that Special-Interest Money doesn't pay off? A Democratic effort to transfer funds from fossile fuel R&D to national forest funds was defeated. as were efforts in both the House and in the Senate to reduce appropriations for timber sales, with the money being transferred to fish and wildlife preservation efforts. The Democrats failed to stop the defunding of the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles -- these are the cars and trucks which are designed and built to get 70 and 80 miles per gallon of gasoline. The Democrats also failed to get a Home Heating Oil Reserve established for the Northeastern states. In the Pacific Northwest, there was a series of four votes which finally succeeded in turning back a Democratic attempt to remove the funding limitations on the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Because of this vote, the White House has informed the Congress the Interior appropriations bill will be vetoed by the President.

In the 2001 appropriations bill for the VA, HUD, and Other Agencies such as the EPA, the Democrats failed in an effort in June 2000 to vote down a Republican amendment forbidding the EPA from using appropriated funds to enforce the EPA Air Quality Standards of 1997. The Democrats also lost on an amendment trying remove language from the legislation which prevented the EPA from using dredging to remove PCP contaminants from river bottoms in the East and from coastal areas off the California coast. They also lost on an amendment to insert language in the appropriations bill calling for the enforcement of the arsenic in drinking water regulations. Finally, the Democrats were unable to push through a STRONG pesticides provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act, having to accept a WEAK provision in its place.

Fellow Citizens:

Representative Sununu (R-NH) presented the first anti-environmental amendment to HR.4578, the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior almost immediately after debate on the bill opened on the floor of the House. This was at 5:11PM on June 14, 2000.

The Sununu amendment was a clever trick to kill the funding for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) under the guise of using a small part of the money saved for GOOD environmental things such as $10 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and $10 million dollars each for three other programs. The idea was to strip the total funding of $126.5 million from the PNGV, take $40 million out for the GOOD things, and put the rest back into the general fund of the Treasury. As we will see, by 8:00PM that same day, the enthusiasm of Mr. Sununu and his fellow Republicans for the environment had disappeared when they voted twice against pro-environmental legislation.

The PNGV is a ten-year program whose objective is to produce by the year 2004 an affordable 80-mile-per-gallon five-passenger automobile. For every dollar invested by the American taxpayer, the auto industry is putting in almost two dollars more. During the debate on the floor we learned that the 10-year program had recently reached its 6-year objective of developing a concept vehicle meeting the desired fuel efficiency. The next phase of the program, from 2000 to 2004 was to make the 80-mile-per-gallon five-passenger family sedan affordable.

In House Roll Call Vote 274 on June 14th, 2000, the Sununu amendment to kill the funding for the PNGV program passed on a vote of 214 AYES to 211 NAYs. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 214 AYES, there were (145R, 67D, 2 I). Of the 211 NAYS, there were (71R, 140D).

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 145 (67% ) voted FOR, and 71 (33%) AGAINST eliminating $126.5 million for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.

Of the 207 Democrats voting, 140 (68%) voted AGAINST eliminating the program, and 67 (32%) voted FOR the elimination.

Both parties split on a 2/3 to 1/3 basis, with 2/3 of the Democrats voting to keep the PNGV program going, and 2/3 of the Republicans voting to kill it. This at a time when gasoline prices across the country were at an all-time high.

Fellow Citizens:

After successfully using a vote that appeared to be pro-environment to kill all of the funding for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles at five o'clock on June 14th, 2000, the Republican enthusiasm for the environment quietly dissipated like the exhaust from a car, leaving only the smell behind. In two votes, the first at 8:04PM, and the second at 8:44PM, two pro-environmental amendments, one by Representative DeFazio (D-OR), the other by Representative Wu (D-OR), were voted down.

MONEY FROM FOSSILE FUEL R&D TO THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Representative DeFazio (D-OR) proposed reducing the Fossile Fuel (oil and gas) R&D budget by $53 million dollars and to increase the funding for the National Forest System by $26 million dollars.

In House Roll Call Vote 276 on June 14th, 2000, the DeFazio amendment to HR.4578 LOST on a vote of 167 AYES to 254 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 167 AYES there were (33R, 133D, 1 I). Of the 254 NAYS, there were (181R, 72D, 1I).

Of the 214 Republicans voting, 181 (85%) voted AGAINST, and 33 (15%) voted FOR the DeFazio amendment.

Of the 205 Democrats voting, 133 (65%) voted FOR, 72 (35%) voted AGAINST the DeFazio amendment.

TO REDUCE TIMBER SALES FUNDING BY $14.7 MILLION AND INCREASE FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BY $14.7 MILLION

In Roll Call vote 277 on June 14, 2000, the Wu (D-OR) amendment to transfer $14. million dollars from timber sales to Fish and Wildlife management LOST on a vote of 173 AYES to 249 NAYS . Of the 173 AYES, there were (38R, 134D, 1 I). Of the 249 NAYS. there were (179R, 69D, 1I). The AYE was the pro-environment vote.

Of the 217 Republicans voting, 179 (83%) voted AGAINST the Wu amendment, and 38 (17%) voted FOR it.

Of the 203 Democrats voting, 134 (66%) voted FOR the Wu amendment and 69 (34%) voted AGAINST it.

Fellow Citizens:

1998 - The ICBEMP is the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan. It was initiated in 1993 by the Clinton Administration. A rider on HR.4193, the FY99 Interior appropriations bill effectively ended the project by preventing a final decision on the ICBEMP Final Environmental Impact Statement. Representative McDermott (D-WA) attempted to kill the rider with his amendment which failed on a floor vote on July 23 1998. The rider was in the final bill passed by the House on July 23, 1998.

HR.4193 Roll Call Vote 327 July 23, 1998. 202 AYES to 221 NAYS. The AYE vote was pro-environment. AYES were 202 (15R, 186D, 1 I ). NAYS were 208R, 13D.

Of the 223 Republicans voting, 208 (93%) voted AGAINST the ICBEMP, and 15 (7%) voted FOR it. Of the 199 Democrats voting, 186 (93%) voted FOR the ICBEMP and 13 (7%) voted AGAINST it.

2000 - On June 15th, 2000, Representative Dicks (D-WA) offered an amendment to the FY2001 Interior appropriations bill which would remove language stopping the ICBEMP from going forward, and would also remove other language in the bill which would limit the design, planning, and management of national monuments. As Dicks noted, "both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed."

There were four votes on the Dicks amendment on June 15th. Immediately after the Dicks amendment was proposed, Representative Nethercutt (R-WA) offered an amendment to keep in place the language on the ICBEMP that Dicks wanted to remove.

In House Roll Call Vote 279 on June 15th 2000, the Nethercutt Amendment to HR.4578 nullifying the Dicks Amendment on the ICBEMP lost on a vote of 206 AYES to 221 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 206 AYES, there were (202R, 3D, 1 I). Of the 221 NAYS, there were (16R, 204D, 1 I), with 7 Representatives not voting.

Of the 218 Republicans voting 202 (93%) voted FOR the Nethercutt amendment, and 16 (7%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 207 Democrats voting, 204 (99%) voted AGAINST the Nethercutt amendment and 3 (1%) voted FOR it.

About an hour later, Representative Hansen (R-UT), offered an amendment to nullify the language in the Dicks amendment on the planningand management of national monuments.

In House Roll Call Vote 280 on June 15th, the Hansen amendment to HR.4578 lost by a vote of 187 AYES to 234 NAYS . The NAY was the pro-environment vote. The 187 AYES were (177R, 9D, 1 I). The 234 NAYS were (38R, 195D, 1 I) with 13 Representatives not voting.

Of the 215 Republicans voting, 177 (82%) voted FOR the Hansen amendment, and 38 (18%) voted AGAINST it.

Of the 204 Democrats voting, 195 (96%) voted AGAINST the Hansen amendment, and 9 (4%) voted FOR it.

The House then voted on the Dicks amendment itself. In House Roll Call Vote 281 on the Dicks amendment to HR4578 , the amendment won on a vote of 243 AYES to 177 NAYS. The AYE was the pro-environment vote. Of the 243 AYES, there were (46R, 196D, 1 I). Of the 177 NAYS, there were (169 R 7D, 1 I) with 14 Representatives not voting.

Of the 215 Republicans voting, 169 (79%) voted AGAINST the Dicks amendment, and 46 (21%) voted FOR it.

Of the 203 Democrats voting, 196 (97%) voted FOR the Dicks amendment and 7 (3%) voted AGAINST it.

Shortly after 10:30PM on the evening of June 15th, Representative Nethercutt (R-WA) proposed an amendment prohibiting the use funds appropriated under HR.4578 for the ICBEMP but retained that portion of the Dicks amendment on the planning and management of national monuments.

In House Roll Call Vote 288 on June 15, 2000, the Nethercutt amendment won by a vote of 197 AYES to 180 NAYS. The NAY was the pro-environment vote. Of the 197 AYES, there were (194R 2D, 1 I). Of the 180 NAYS, there were (13R 166D 1 I), with 58 Representatives not voting (15R 43D).

Of the 207 Republicans voting, 194 (94%) voted FOR the Nethercutt amendment which nullified the Dicks amendment, and 13 (6%) voted AGAINST it.

Of the 168 Democrats voting, 166 (99%) voted AGAINST the Nethercutt amendment and 2 (1%) voted for it. This vote was taken at 10:36PM and 43 Democrats were no longer in the House Chamber. ICBEMP was dead for another year unless a presidential veto could change minds.

Fellow Citizens:

On June 15th, 2000, the House was considering HR.4578, the FY2001 appropriations bill for the Departments of the Interior and Energy. There were two votes in the House that day which were and are of great importance to the people of the United States. One had to do with reducing the pollution caused by coal burning, the other with home heating oil. Neither received much, if any coverage in the nation's newspapers, probably because they both showed the Republican Party in its true colors.

The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 214 Republicans voting, 189 (88%) voted AGAINST the Slaughter amendment, and 25 (12%) voted FOR it. Of the 195 Democrats voting, 181 (93%) voted FOR the Slaughter amendment, and 14 (7%) voted AGAINST it.

During the early evening hours of June 15th, Representative Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment which would provide $10 million in funding for the creation of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. In House Roll Call Vote 286, the Sanders amendment LOST on a CLOSE vote of 193 AYES to 195 NAYS. Of the 193 AYES, there were (23R, 169D, 1 I ). Of the 195 NAYS there were (181R, 13D, 1 I), with 47 Representatives, a fairly large number, not voting (18R, 29D).

Of the 204 Republicans voting, 181 (89%) voted AGAINST the Home Heating Oil Reserve for the Northeast, and 23 (11%) voted FOR it.

b Of the 182 Democrats voting, 169 (93%) voted FOR the Reserve, and 13 (7%) voted AGAINST it.

It would appear that a Republican Party led by Representatives Armey and Delay of Texas is not all that concerned with the idea of expensive heating oil in the northeastern United States. After all, a popular Texas bumper sticker that appeared when attempts were made to cut oil and gasoline prices a few years ago said: "Let Them Freeze in the Dark."

However, in mid-July, a Democratic president took the action the Republican-led Congress would not: " WASHINGTON (AP) -- July 10, 2000 6:40PM EDT -- President Clinton moved Monday to stockpile 2 million barrels of heating oil in the Northeast as politicians, eying the November election, looked for political cover in event of a repeat of last winter's sharp price spike in home heating costs. Heating oil stocks are alarmingly low for this time of year as refineries concentrate on pumping out as much gasoline as possible, raising concern of another supply crunch in the Northeast."

"In remarks to reporters, Clinton criticized the Republican-led Congress for failing to pass legislation creating a Northeast heating oil reserve. 'Time is running out,' Clinton said, explaining why he was acting by executive order. ' . . . If we don't do something now, reserve stocks of heating oil may not be in place before the cold weather comes.' "

But the news of the June 15th vote and the President's action on July 20th received hardly any play in the nation's newspapers. It would make the Republican Party look bad, and the Mainstream Media's political agenda is to avoid this at all costs.

This is the way the Mainstream Media handles the FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION on the workings of what used to be OUR representative government.

Fellow Citizens:

On June 16th, 2000, the Democrats in the House of Representatives made two last attempts to change or to stop the passage of HR.4578, the FY2001 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. Of the eleven House votes on this bill, the Democrats won out in ONLY ONE case, Clean Coal Technology, and won a partial victory on national monuments. In all of the other votes, the Democrats LOST and SPECIAL-INTEREST MONEY WON.

Big Timber and its Republican allies defeated a Democratic effort to transfer funds from fossile fuel R&D to national forest funds together with an effort in the House to reduce appropriations for timber sales, with the money being transferred to fish and wildlife preservation efforts. Big Oil and its Republican allies succeeded in killing all of the funding for the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles and stopping a Home Heating Oil Reserve for the Northeastern states.

Big Timber, Big Mining, and Big Grazing interests in the Pacific Northwest again succeeded in turning back a Democratic attempt to remove the funding limitations on the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP. Once again, the Interior appropriations bill will probably be vetoed by the President later this year as it has been vetoed in years past.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

The Democratic motion to recommit the Interior appropriations bill with instructions LOST in House Roll Call Vote 290 by a recorded vote of 184 AYES to 188 NAYS. Of the 184 AYES there were (21R, 162D. 1 I) Of the 188 NAYS, there were (182R, 5D, 1 I), with 63 Representatives not voting (19R, 44D).

Of the 203 Republicans voting, 182 (90%) voted AGAINST the motion to recommit with instructions, and 21 (10%) voted FOR it. Of the 167 Democrats voting, 162 (97%) voted FOR the motion and 5 (3%) voted AGAINST.

FINAL VOTE IN THE HOUSE ON HR.4578, THE FY2001 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL.

In House Roll Call Vote 291, the bill PASSED on a vote of 204 AYES to 172 NAYS. Of the 204 AYES, there were (194R, 9D, 1 I). Of the 172 NAYS, there were (13R, 158D 1 I), with 59 Representatives not voting (15R, 44D).

Of the 207 Republicans voting, 194 (94%) voted to pass HR.4578, the Interior appropriations bill, and 13 (6%) voted AGAINST. Of the 167 Democrats voting, 158 (95%) voted AGAINST passing the bill, and 9 (5%) voted FOR it.

Fellow Citizens:

Since 1997, the American Trucking Association and various industrial polluters in urban areas have been fighting the enforcement of stricter EPA regulations on ozone emissions. They were particularly concerned that the EPA be prevented from identifying those areas of the country, usually in and around major population centers, where ozone emissions were extremely high. (WHAT THE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WON'T HURT US POLLUTERS) These efforts intensified after the EPA promulgated an eight-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone regulation on July 18, 1997. With this standard in place the polluters knew that ozone "hot spots" throughout the country would soon be identified for the American people.

Having limited influence with the Clinton-Gore Administration, the American Trucking Association and the other polluters turned to the courts and to the Republicans in Congress for help in turning back this terrible threat -- ACTUALLY informing the American people oF the ozone "hot spots" in the United States. The ATA and the other concerned polluters were successful in bringing a court case before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, a court loaded with right-wing judges during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

On June 21st, 2000, Representative Collins (R-GA) submitted an amendment to HR.4635, the appropriations bill for the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies which would, in the words of the amendment, "prohibits EPA from using any funds in the bill to designate "ozone nonattainment areas" under the more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued by EPA in 1997." Notice the Newspeak term of "ozone nonattainment areas" used in the language of the amendment.

In House Roll Call Vote 305 on June 21st, 2000, the Collins amendment WON on a vote of 225 YEAS to 199 NAYS. Of the 225 AYES, there were (167R, 57D, 1I ). Of the 199 NAYS, there were (49R, 149D, 1 I), with 10 Representatives not voting.

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 167 (77.3%) voted FOR the prohibition against the EPA, and 49 (22.7%) voted AGAINST the prohibition. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 149 (72.3%) voted AGAINST the prohibition, and 57 (27.7%) voted FOR it.

Sec. 426 of HR.4635 now reads: "Prohibits the use of funds made available in this Act prior to June 15, 2001, for the designation, or approval of the designation, of any area as an ozone nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act pursuant to the eight-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone promulgated by the EPA on July 18, 1997, and remanded by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 14, 1999, in the case American Trucking Ass'ns. v. EPA."

No wonder those polluters love the Republican Party! No wonder newspapers across the United States continue to CENSOR this kind of news.

Fellow Citizens:

In the late afternoon of June 21, 2000, the House voted on an amendment by Representative Olver (D-MA) to HR.4635, the FY2001 appropriations bill, which would exclude the committee report's language, and restore the status quo. In House Roll Call Vote 301, the Olver amendment passed by an overwhelming majority of 314 YEAS to 108 NAYS. The 314 YEAS were (118R, 195D, 1 I) and the 108 NAYS were (97R, 10D, 1I) with 12 Representatives not voting.

Of the 215 Republicans voting, 118 (55%) voted FOR the Olver amendment and 97 (45%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 205 Democrats voting, 195 (95%) voted FOR the Olver amendment and 10 (5%) voted AGAINST it.

What is interesting about this vote is the almost 50-50 split in the Republican Party on this issue and the fact that Roll Call Vote 301 permits us to identify the members of the large DIE-HARD anti-environment bloc in the Republican Party and to single out those Democrats who have joined them, Representative Dingell (D-MI), for example.

For example, the Texas House delegation numbers 30 Representatives, 17 Democrats and 13 Republicans. One of the Republicans (Delay), did not vote; all of the remaining Republicans and 3 Texas Democrats voted AGAINST the Olver amendment. In Alabama, all 5 Republicans and one of the 2 Democrats also voted AGAINST Olver. In Oklahoma, with all six seats occupied by Republicans, 5 of the 6 voted AGAINST Olver. House Roll Call Vote 301 was an interesting and highly informative vote.

What a shame no one in the Mainstream Media covered it.

Fellow Citizens:

In the late afternoon of June 21, 2000, the House voted on an amendment by Representative Hinchey (D-NY) which sought to remove language in the committee report prohibiting the EPA from (1) using dredging or other invasive technologies to remove contaminates; and (2) enforcing drinking water standards for arsenic where such activities are authorized by law.

In House Roll Call Vote 304 on June 21st, 2000, the Hinchey amendment LOST on a vote of 208 AYES TO 216 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 208 AYES, there were (28R, 179D, 1I). Of the 216 NAYS, there were (188R, 27D, 1 I), with 10 Representatives not voting.

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 188 (87%) voted AGAINST removing PCB contamination by dredging or other means and AGAINST enforcing drinking water standards for arsenic, and 28 (13%) voted FOR these measures. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 179 (87%) voted FOR removing the PCB contamination by dredging and for enforcing the arsenic standards in drinking water, and 27 (13%) voted AGAINST.

In Roll Call vote 309 of June 21, 2000, the House PASSED HR.4635, the appropriations bill for the VA, HUD, and Other Agencies by a vote of 256 AYES to 169 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 256 AYES, there were (212R, 43D, 1I). Of the 169 NAYS, there were (5R, 163D, 1I), with 9 Representatives not voting.

Of the 217 Republicans voting, 212 (98%) voted FOR the appropriations bill, and 5 (2%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 163 (79%) voted AGAINST the appropriations bill, and 43 (21%) voted FOR it.

Few Americans knew of these votes or their signifcance. Unreported news does not exist. The Mainstream Media's CENSORSHIP of the news saw to that.

Fellow Citizens:

He said: "Of the roughly 179 million acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management outside of Alaska, grazing is allowed on almost 164 million acres out of 179 million, and millions of these acres also contain valuable and sensitive fish, wildlife, archaeological, recreation, or wilderness values."

"At the present time, the BLM authorizes through the issuance of grazing permits approximately 17,000 livestock operators to graze on these 164 million acres of public land. These permits and public land grazing that they allow are important to thousands of Western livestock operators. Many of these livestock operators and ranchers use these permits to help secure bank loans to provide important financial resources for their operations."

Before reauthorizing a grazing permit, the BLM is required BY LAW to conduct an environmental review of the public lands previously used by the permit-holder. In addition, the BLM is required to seek out local public comment from other users of these public lands to determine if the grazing activities conducted by the permit-holder have allowed streams in the grazing areas to flourish or have degraded them, and whether wildlife habitat had been maintained, damaged or destroyed. "Public involvement in this process," Senator Durbin says, " is essential for balanced public management." Without the prior environmental review and the application of related laws, Durbin concludes that "the American public has no real voice in public rangeland management."

The Durbin amendment was to strike Section 116 of HR.4578, the Interior appropriations bill which allowed those holding current grazing permits to bypass current environmental regulations and for those whose permits expire in 2001 to renew under the same terms and conditions (no environmental review required.) {see the convoluted language below]

In Senate Roll Call Vote 172, the Durbin amendment was defeated on a vote of 38 YEAS to 62 NAYS. Of the 38 YEAS there were (4R, 34D). Of the 62 NAYS, there were (51R, 11D).

Of the 55 Republicans voting, 51 (93%) voted AGAINST the Durbin amendment, and 4 (7%) voted FOR it. Of the 45 Democrats voting, 34 (76%) voted FOR the Durbin amendment and 11 (24%) voted AGAINST.

HR.4578, Department of the Interior Appropriations. (Sec. 116) Requires the renewal of grazing permits and leases which expire or are transferred until the Secretary completes processing, at which time a permit or lease may be canceled, suspended, or modified to meet requirements of applicable laws and regulations.

Fellow Citizens:

TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES

Now, when "lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States," (actually PUBLIC LANDS OWNED by the American People), are declared as National Monuments, something bad occurs if you are a large U.S. or foreign-owned corporation trying to exploit the natural resources under those PUBLIC LANDS. Big Oil corporations cannot drill for oil; Big Coal corporations cannot mine for coal; and Big Mining corporations cannot mine for the other valuable resources. This is a terrible thing because under an 1872 law, the permits to do these things costs a minute fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars of the resources that can be extracted. The result: HUGE PROFITS.

In his amendment, Senator Nickles provided a list of the U.S. presidents since Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, together with the acreage of National Monuments they created. As you can see from the list, recent Republican presidents were not all that enthusiatic about creating National Monuments and cutting off all of those U.S. and foreign-owned corporations from exploiting the natural resources OWNED by the American People and making MASSIVE profits with which to buy or intimidate politicians.

Much to the dismay of these U.S. and foreign-owned corporations, the Nickles amendment was voted down in Senate Roll Call Vote 208 by a vote of 49 YEAS to 50 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote and the vote protecting the natural resources of the American people. Of the 49 YEAS, there were (48R, 1D (Senator Byrd [D-WV].) Of the 50 NAYS, there were (6R and 44D), with one Republican Senator not voting.

Of the 54 Republicans voting, 48 (89%) voted FOR transferring the authority to create National Monuments from the President to the Congress, and 6 (11%) voted AGAINST this amendment. Of the 45 Democrats voting, 44 (98%) voted AGAINST the Nickles amendment and 1 (2%) voted FOR it.

Fellow Citizens:

The Acreage of National Monuments created by Presidents since the Antiquities Act was initiated in 1906.

Theodore Roosevelt (1906-1909) 1,529,418

William H. Taft (1909-1913) 32,631

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) 1,202,913

W.G. Harding (1921-1923) 9,555

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) 2,634,226

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) 2,125,720

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) 2,626,559

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) 27,954

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) a net loss of 22,530

(balance of acreage added/acreage removed)

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) 26,128

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) 344,674

Richard M. Nixon (1969-1973) 0

Gerald R. Ford (1973-1977) 86

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) 55,975,000 (in Alaska)

Ronald W. Reagan1981-1989) 0

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) 0

William Jefferson Clinton (1993-Present) 3,789,669 (lower 48)

Fellow Citizens:

Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV) tells a somewhat different story on July 17th, when he introduced an amendment to the FY2001 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. His amendment called for reducing the $250 million Timber Sales Budget of the Forest Service by $30 million, and to increase the Wildland Fire Management Budget by $15 million. The money to be spent for writing and implementing Fire Preparedness Plans for the 95 percent of the National Forests not yet covered by such plans. The Clinton Administration had asked for $220 million for timber sales, but Bryan's fellow Senators had increased the sales budget because they believed "the myth that commercial logging is the best method of fuels reduction"

"In fact, to the contrary," Senator Bryan notes, "it is widely recognized in the scientific community that past commercial logging and associated roadbuilding activities are the prime culprits for the severity of many of our wildfires. Commercial logging removes the least flammable portion of trees--their main stems or trunks, while leaving behind their most flammable portions--their needles and limbs, directly on the ground. Untreated logging slash can adversely affect fire behavior for up to 30 years following the logging operations."

[He continues} "According to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report, issued in 1996 by the Federal Government, timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity. . . . Logging causes adverse changes in forest composition--intensive thinning and clearcutting dry out soils and leave behind debris that becomes tinder dry in open clearcuts."

Moreover, Bryan notes, "The General Accounting Office estimated that the timber program cost taxpayers at least $2 billion from 1922 to 1997, and in recent testimony they indicated that `[t]he Forest Service is still years away from providing the Congress and the public with a clear understanding of what is being accomplished with taxpayer dollars.' "

In Senate Roll Call Vote 207, the Bryan amendment LOST on a vote of 45 YEAS to 54 NAYS. The YEA vote was the pro-environment votes. Of the 45 YEAS, there were (7R, 38D). Of the 54 NAY votes, there were (47R, 7D), with one Republican Senator not voting.

Of the 54 Republicans voting, 47 (87%) voted AGAINST the Bryan amendment, and 7 (13%) voted FOR it. Of the 45 Democrats voting, 38 (84%) voted FOR the Bryan amendment and 7 (16%) voted AGAINST it.

Countering claims of Republicans that the widespread forest fires of 2000 are due to the cut back in commercial lumbering in public forests, a just-released Congressional Research Service study into forest fires on U.S. Forest Service lands from 1980 through 1999 noted that there was no apparent correlation between timber harvests and forest fires. While two of the "worst fire years, 1994 and 1996, occurred during low timber harvest years. . . the study [also] found that two of the four worst fire years -- 1987 and 1988 -- occurred during the peak timber harvests of the last 20 years."

In fact the Congressional Research Service study reaffims Senator Bryan's observations: " ' Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be coverted into wood products, but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles,' report author Ross Gorte wrote. 'The concentration of these `fine fuels' on the forest floor increases the rate of spread of wildfires.' " (AP, September 1, 2000)

Fellow Citizens:

Subsequently, Senator Boxer (D-CA) proposed an amendment adding the following to Section 349: "None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used for the preventive application of a pesticide containing a known or probable carcinogen, a category I or II acute nerve toxin or a pesticide of the organophosphate, carbamate, or organ-ochlorine class as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency in National Parks in any area where children and pregnant women may be present." Senator Boxer then said:

"Mr. President, this is an important amendment. What we are saying is, for routine pesticide spraying in our national parks where children play and pregnant women are present, that the Park Service should use the least toxic pesticides. In other words, for routine use, don't use pesticides that are known carcinogens, probable carcinogens, or that are toxic to the nervous system. These pesticides are identified by EPA as `those which pose the greatest risk to public health.' "

On July 18, 2000, in Senate Roll Call Vote 210, the Boxer amendment LOST in a vote of 41 AYES to 58 NAYS. Of the 41 AYES, there were (4R, 37D). Of the 58 NAYS, there were 50R, 8D), with one Senator not voting.

Of the 54 Republicans voting, 50 (93%) voted AGAINST the amendment specifically identifying the pesticides that should NOT be sprayed in U.S. National Parks, and 4 voted FOR it. Of the 45 Democrats voting, 37 (82%) voted FOR the Boxer amendment, and 8 (18%) voted AGAINST it.

Lacking information from a Mainstream Media that deliberately and persistently ignores stories like this, I would guess that the pesticides described in the Boxer amendment are APPROVED for use by the EPA, even though they "pose the greatest risk to public health." Their KNOWN use in National Parks would raise a Red Flag of Danger, if this were KNOWN. Given the number of Americans using our National Parks each year, it would appear this UNREPORTED news is of considerable interest to the American People.

Here again, the information is available to the Media, but it is not reported. No wonder our Congress is NOT ACCOUNTABLE to the American People.