1999 - the FIFTH 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. Overview of the Battles in the 1999 Anti-Environment War

2. The First Environmental Battle of February 1999 -HR.350

3. The Second Environmental Battle of February 1999 - HR.350

4. The Third Environmental Battle of February 1999 - HR.391

5. The Environmental Battles of March and April 1999 -- Commercial Fishing & Wetlands

6. The Environmental Votes of June 1999 -- Killing of Predators on PUBLIC LANDS, Renewable Energy

7. The Environmental Votes of July 1999 - Transferring Money from Fossile Fuel (Oil and Coal) R&D to the Land and Water Conservation Fund

8. The Environmental Votes of July 1999 - Dumping Toxic Mining Wastes on PUBLIC LANDS.

9. The Environmental Votes of July and August, 1999 - International Issues.

10. The Environmental Votes of July and September, 1999 --The Logging of Trees from PUBLIC FORESTS had a higher priority than Fish and Wildlife Habitat Managment.

11. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - Brownfields and the Final Votes on the Appropriations for VA, HUD, and Other Agencies.

12. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - Wildlife Surveys.

13. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - Fuel Efficiency Standards

14. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - A Give-Away to Big Oil

15. The Environmental Votes of October, 1999 - The Battle over Dumping Toxic Mining Wastes on Public Lands Continued

16. The Environmental Votes of November 1999 - Logging

17. The Environmental Votes of November 1999 - Senator Byrd

1. Overview of the Battles in the 1999 Anti-Environment War

Fellow Citizens:

FEBRUARY 1999

The battles over environmental legislation began in the House in February 1999 during the debates and the voting on two far-reaching anti-evironmental laws. The first anti-environment bill, HR.350, included language expanding on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The net effect was that legislation proposing new health and safety protections could be greatly slowed or prevented from being brought to a vote. The Boehlert amendment to remove these provisions was defeated on February 10, 1999, and HR.350 was passed by the House on the same day. Prior to the final vote, the Waxman amendment calling for rules extending debate time and for indedpendent voting procedures on new health and safety measures was also defeated.

HR.391, the second anti-environment bill, was labeled as an attempt to reduce paperwork for small businesses. One of its provisions was a BLANKET WAIVER of the civil penalties for the first-time VIOLATION of federal regulations including those requiring the tracking of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, the reporting of HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS, the reporting of DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION, and the requirements for meat packers to prevent BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION. The Kucinich admendment to remove these provisions was defeated on February 11, 1999, and HR.391 was passed on the same day.

MARCH-JUNE 1999

In March and April 1999, a Democratic attempt to strip the Murkowski (R-AK) rider calling for commerical fishing in Glacier Bay was defeated in the Senate and another Democratic amendment to regulate permits to drain wetlands and to construct homes and businesses on flood plains was defeated in the House. In June, an attempt to cut wild predator control funds in the House and an attempt in the Senate to provide additional funds for Renewable Energy were both defeated.

JULY-AUGUST 1999

In July, during the debate over HR.2466, the Department of the Interior's appropriations bill, the House approved four pro-environment amendments: (1) cutting research funds for fossil fuel research by $50million; (2) providing $29 million additional dollars from these funds for the Land and Water Conservation fund; (3) stopping the dumping of toxic wastes from solid rock mining on public lands, and (4) funding foreign birth control measures. At the same time, the House (and later the Senate) defeated amendments to transfer funds from U.S. Forest Service timber sales activities into the fish and wildlife programs. In the debate over HR. 2684, the appropriations for the VA and HUD, a Democratic amendment for increased brownfields funding was defeated. In late July, the Senate voted for the Craig (R-ID) amendment to kill a Democratic amendment which would stop the dumping of toxic wastes from solid rock mining on public lands.

In August, the House voted for an anti-environment amendment to prohibit adding sites to the list of World Heritage sites. (Haworth [R-AZ] )

SEPTEMBER 1999

In September, the action was in the Senate, and it was all against the environment. The Senate approved (Hutchinson [R-TX] amendment to HR 2466 allowing the Oil Industry to avoid paying royalties on oil pumped from public lands and voted down three amendments which would have removed three provisions containing anti-environment language from the Interior appropriations bill. HR. 2466 was then passed by the Senate and sent to a House-Senate conference.

OCTOBER 1999

The Dicks (D-WA) amendment of October 4th, 1999, in the House contained specific language prohibiting the dumping of mine wastes on public lands and general language opposing other anti-environmental measures in the Interior appropriations bill. It was only passed by the House because it provided NON-BINDING instructions for members of the House delegation appointed by the Republican leadership to the House-Senate Conference Committee on the Interior Appropriations.

Not surprisingly, the House negotiators ignored the non-binding instructions. After two weeks of discussions with the Senate, they agreed to accept most of the Senate's riders, including (1) Senator Craig's (R-ID) rider to continue dumping toxic mining waste on public lands. The resulting Interior Appropriations House-Senate conference report contained seven other provisions damaging to the environment or rolling back public health and safety laws. The seven additonal provisions:

2. Allowed new permits for grazing on millions of acres of public rangelands without appropriate environmental reviews;

3. Allowed the oil industry to avoid paying $66 to $100 million a year in royalties to the Amercian taxpayer for drilling on public lands (Hutchinson [R-TX] );

4. Diverted funds intended for building national forest trails to the promotion of timber sales (Craig [R-ID];

5. Allowed the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to ignore wildlife resource data in managing national forests or Bureau of Land Management lands;

6. Blocked the Secretary of the Interior from protecting the Ozark National Scenic Riverways from proposed lead mining (Lott [R-MS] )

7. Delayed efforts to reduce noise pollution in Grand Canyon National Park; and

8. Subsidized increased logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest (Murkowski, [R-AK])

On October 21, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2466 by a vote of 225 — 200. The NAY vote is the pro-environment vote. After President Clinton threatened to veto the bill, the Republican leadership removed or revised some of the anti-environment riders.

The pro-environmentalists finally lost on the Craig rider to continue dumping mining wastes on public lands when the revised rider simply "grandfathered" existing mines under the rider.

2. The First Environmental Battle of February 1999 - HR.350

Fellow Citizens:

In an highly ironic twist, the first battle in the 1999 Republican War Against the Environment began on February 10th when a pro-environment Republican attempted to amend a House bill by an anti-environment Democrat that would create additional legislative roadblocks to prevent new environmental, health and safety measures from being brought to a vote.

In 1995, the new Republican-dominated Congress passed an Unfunded Mandate Reform Act that required the Congressional Budget Office to report to the government and TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES on the costs of legislative proposals. The sting in the tail of the Act was the requirement that proposals costing state and local government more than $50 million dollars to comply could be held up by a legislative roadblack in either house of the Congress. The original act did not include the costs to private businesses of new legislative proposals. HR.350, sponsored by Representative Gary Condit (D-CA) extended and deepened the legislative roadblock, TO INCLUDE PRIVATE BUSINESSES where the proposed legislation would cost the businesses $100 million dollars or more to comply. On the face of it, this was possibly a fair proposal for legislative restraint, HOWEVER . . . .

According to the League of Conservation Voters, the federal mandates on private businesses that H.R. 350 SPECIFICALLY TARGETED included:

1. Requirements that companies generating HAZARDOUS WASTE pay the costs of disposal;

2. Requirements that companies discarding waste in lakes and streams reduce the TOXIC and CANCER-CAUSING causing chemicals they release; and

3. Requirements that meat packers ensure that the meat they sell is not contaminated with DEADLY BACTERIA.

HR.350 limited debate to 10 minutes per side and allowed members of Congress to vote on a point of order and thus block important environmental, health and safety protections WITHOUT VOTING DIRECTLY against these protections. Thus, those opposed to environmental, health or safety protections could vote against these protections and then return to their voters claiming they had not.

Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) offered an amendment to increase the debate time to add 20 minutes per side, and to remove the point of order vote cop-out.

In Roll Call vote 15 on February 10th, 1999 - the Boehlert amendment lost 210 AYES to 216 NAYS. The AYE vote was pro-environment. The 210 AYES were (34R, 175D, 1I). The 216 NAYS were (187R, 29D), with 8 Representatives not voting.

Of the 221 Republicans voting, 187 (85%) voted AGAINST the Boehlert Amendment, and 34 (15%) voted FOR it. Of the 204 Democrats voting, 175 (86%) voted FOR the Boehlert Amendment, and 29 (14%) voted AGAINST it.

Thus, 86% of the Democrats voted AGAINST an anti-environmental, anti-health, and anti-safety law by a fellow Democrat, and 85% of the Republicans voted FOR it.

3. The Second Environmental Battle of February 1999 - HR.350

Fellow Citizens:

One of the legislative tricks developed since 1995 by anti-environmental, anti-health and anti-safety Senators and House members has been to attach anti-environmental provisions as unrelated "riders" to MUST-PASS spending bills. A second trick was to create an entirely new bill containing provisions that are GOOD and highly popular with the folks back home, together with the anti-environmental, health and safety provisions the folks back home will not know about because the NATIONAL, REGIONAL, and LOCAL newspapers have simply CENSORED this kind of news out of their newspapers.

In this way, Senators or Representatives who would normally vote against these anti-environmental proposals are stymied. If they vote against a widely supported spending bill or a popular bill because of the anti-environmental measures the bill contains, they would be blamed for defeating something GOOD. THIS NEWS, of course, would be plastered all over the newspapers back home. This is what happens when newspapers are used to INDOCTRINATE the American people to a single political point of view and not to INFORM them of the news -- a VIOLATION, by the way, of our First Amendment rights.

This occurred when the House was debating HR.350, the Condit (D-CA) bill making it difficult or impossible to pass new health, safety, or environmental legislation by tying it up in procedural red tape, After the defeat of the Boehlert (R-NY) amendment, there was one more attempt to stop this bill. According the League of Conservation Voters, "Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment that would have expanded opportunities for open debate over bills that weaken or roll back health, safety or environmental protections. The Waxman 'Defense of the Environment' amendment would have created a new parliamentary procedure guaranteeing members of Congress the right to openly debate and independently vote on anti-environment provisions and making it more difficult to pass major legislation with unrelated and undebated anti-environment riders attached."

On February 10, 1999, the House rejected the Waxman amendment in Roll Call Vote 16 by a vote of 203 AYES to 216 NAYS. The AYE vote is the pro-environment vote.

The YEAS were 203 (19R, 183D, 1 I). The NAYS were 216 (196R, 20D), with 14 representatives not voting.

Of the 215 Republicans voting, 196 (91%) voted AGAINST the Waxman amendment, and 19 (9%) voted FOR it. Of the 203 Democrates voting, 183 (90%) voted FOR the Waxman amendment, and 20 (10%) voted AGAINST it.

HOBSON'S CHOICE - "An apparently free choice when there is no real alternative; often also used to refer to a situation presenting a choice among unpleasant alternatives." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Allusions, 1999.

ROLL CALL VOTE 17 - February 10th, 1999 - ON THE CONDIT BILL HR.350. The act was passed by a vote of 274 AYES to 149 NAYS. The NAY vote was pro-environment.

The AYES were 274 (207R, 67D). The NAYS were 149 (11R, 137D 1 I).

Of the 218 Republicans voting, 207 (95%) voted for HR.350, and 8 (5%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 204 Democrats voting, 137 (67%) voted AGAINST HR.350 and 67 (33%) voted FOR HR.350.

4. The Third Environmental Battle of February 1999 - HR.391

Fellow Citizens:

In early 1999, the anti-environmentalists in Congress figured out a new way to damage or destroy environmental programs. This was by introducing a bill, HR.391, which would reduce unnecessary paperwork for SMALL BUSINESSES and to protect SMALL BUSINESSES who make innocent mistakes. On the face of it, both of these are GOOD THINGS TO DO. However, according to the Small Business Administration, SMALL BUSINESSES "generally include businesses with up to 500 employees, and in some industries with as many as 1,500 employees." (This means there are lots of "SMALL BUSINESSES" in the United States.)

HR.391 was sponsored by Representative David McIntosh (R-IN). Among other things, HR.391 WAIVED CIVIL PENALTIES for ALL FIRST-TIME VIOLATIONS of reporting and record-keeping requirments. The McIntosh law, as written, totally disregarded the IMPORTANCE of the missing or incorrect information or the MAGNITUDE of the violation itself. The LCV tells us that among the environmental programs affected by HR.391, " are those that track hazardous materials, report on hazardous emissions, report on drinking water contamination and require meat packers to prevent bacterial contamination."

The Kucinich (D-OH) amendment attempted to remove language in HR.391 that provided a BLANKET WAIVER of civil penalties for FIRST TIME OFFENDERS of Federal laws on the TRACKING of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, the REPORTING of HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS, on the REPORTING of DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION, on REQUIRING MEAT PACKERS TO PREVENT BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION, and to REMOVE PROVISIONS OF HR.391 which prevent the ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS on these same matters.

In House Roll Call vote 19 on February 11, 1999, the Kucinich Amendment lost on a vote of 210 AYES to 214 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environmental vote. The 210 AYES were (13R, 196D, 1 I). The 214 NAYS were (204R, 10D), with 10 Representatives not voting.

Of the 217 Republicans voting, 204 (94%) voted to KEEP the blanket waiver, and 13 (6%) voted to remove it. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 196 (95%) voted to REMOVE the blanket waiver, and 10 (5%) voted to KEEP it.

House Roll Call vote 20 - February 11, 1999 - Passing of HR.391, the so-called McIntosh SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT.

The House passed H.R. 391 by a vote of 274 AYES to 151 NAYS. The NAY was the pro-environment vote. The 274 AYES were (210R, 64D). The 151 NAYS were (7R, 143D 1I), with 8 Representatives not voting.

Of the 217 Republicans voting, 210 (97%) voted FOR the Act; of the 207 Democrats voting, 143 (69%) voted AGAINST the Act, and 64 (31%) voted for it.

5. The Environmental Battles of March and April 1999: Commercial Fishing & Wetlands

Fellow Citizens:

Although not reported in your local newspaper, there were two environmental votes in the Congress in the months of March and April, 1999.

COMMERCIAL FISHING IN GLACIER BAY. During the negotiations over October 1998, as part of the omnibus appropriations package, in October 1998, the Republican leadership in Congress and the Clinton administration reached an agreement to phase out commercial fishing in Glacier Bay, while authorizing fishing in park waters outside of the actual Bay.

However, during consideration of the February supplemental appropriations bill for FY1999, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) offered an amendment to prohibit any expenditure of federal funds to implement the phase-out of commercial fishing The rationale for the amendment was that there was a court decision still pending on a state of Alaska lawsuit questioning federal jurisdiction of submerged lands. What relationship this lawsuit had to commercial fishing in Glacier Bay is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Murkowski’s amendment would have had the actual effect of reopening the Bay to commercial fishing and was opposed by the Clinton administration, the Park Service and environmentalists.

Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) offered a motion to table the Murkowski amendment. His motion lost (see below). However the Murkowski amendment was later dropped from the supplemental appropriations bill in the House/Senate conference on the bill.

On March 23, 1999 in Senate Roll Call vote 56 the Baucus motion lost on a vote of 40 YEAS to 59 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. The 40 AYES were (6R, 34D). The 59 NAYS were (48R, 11D).

Of the 54 Republicans voting, 48 (89%) voted AGAINST the motion to table the Murkowski amendment and 6 (11%) voted FOR it. Of the 45 Democrats voting, 34 (76%) voted FOR the motion to table the Murkowski amendment and 11 (24%) voted AGAINST it.

An anti-environment (and anti-taxpayer) provision in HR.2605, the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, created procedural and legal roadblocks to the introduction of the new program. The interests of the American taxpayers were totally ignored, although in the last few years, billions of dollars in public funds have been spent to bail out the owners of homes and businesses built on flood plains. In early 1999, Representative Peter Visclosky (D-IN) offered an amendment to remove these roadblocks.

In House Roll Call Vote 341 on April 22, 1999, the Visclosky amendment lost on a vote of 183 AYES to 245 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. The 183 AYES were (6R, 176D, 1 I). The 245 NAYS were (214R, 31D) with 5 Representatives not voting.

Of the 220 Republicans voting, 214 (97%) voted AGAINST the Visclosky amendment, and 6 (3%) voted FOR it. Of the 207 Democrats voting, 176 (85%) voted FOR the Visclosky amendment and 31 (15%) voted AGAINST it.

6. The Environmental Votes of June 1999 -- Killing of Predators on PUBLIC LANDS, Renewable Energy

Fellow Citizens:

KILLING OF PREDATORS ON PUBLIC LANDS BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. Each year at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, Department of the Agriculture hunters and trappers kill more than 100,000 coyotes, black bears, mountain lions and other predators as a service to livestock ranchers. Much of this killing is conducted on PUBLIC LANDS. These hunters and trappers will even kill animals before livestock damage is reported, sometimes before livestock have moved onto a parcel of PUBLIC LAND.

In House Roll Call Vote 172 on June 8, 1999, the Defazio/Bass amendment lost by a vote of 193 AYES to 230 NAYS, with 11 Representatives not voting. An AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 193 AYES, there were (63R, 129D, 1 I). Of the 230 NAYS there were (153R, 77D).

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 153 (71%) voted AGAINST the DeFazio/Bass amendment and 63 (29%) voted FOR it. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 129 (63%) voted FOR the Amendment and 77 (37%) voted AGAINST it.

BLOCKING OF AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDS RENEWABLE ENERGY. In its proposed fiscal year 2000 budget, the Clinton administration sought to increase funding for the Energy Department’s renewable energy programs, but the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to cut the administration’s budget request by 22 percent–$18 million less than Congress approved for renewable energy programs in fiscal 1999.

During Senate consideration of S1186, the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment that would have added $62 million to the Energy Department’s solar and renewable energy programs. Opponents of the Jeffords amendment claimed that it violated Senate budget rules because it did not provide a valid "offset" (compensating spending reduction) for its funding increase. On June 16, 1999, in a procedural vote called by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate voted 60 — 39 to block the Jeffords amendment from being considered by the full Senate.

Senate Roll Call vote 171 on a procedural vote to block the Jeffords amendment won by a vote of 60 YEAS to 39 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 60 YEAS

there were 41R, 21D). Of the 39 NAYS, there were (14R, 25D).

Of the 55 Republicans voting, 41 (75%) voted FOR blocking Jeffords amendment for funding renewable energy, and 14 (25%) voted AGAINST blocking the amendment. Of the 44 Democrats voting, 25 (57%) voted AGAINST blocking the amendment, and 19 (43%) voted FOR blocking the Jeffords amendment.

7. The Environmental Votes of July 1999 - Transferring Money from Fossile Fuel (Oil and Coal) R&D to the Land and Water Conservation Fund

Fellow Citizens:

THE FOSSILE FUEL R&D PROGRAM

As the League of Conservation Voters points out in its analysis of the 1999 anti-environmental votes in the Congress, there were very good reasons to cut back on the Department of Energy's Fossile Fuel R&D Program that would cost $280 million dollars in FY2000. As the LCV notes:

"The burning of fossil fuels is one of the world’s major sources of pollution, producing the nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide that, in turn, contribute to smog and global warming. Yet the Department of Energy, through its Fossil Fuel Research and Development program, continues to spend money on technologies to produce, refine and burn fossil fuels such as coal, rather than on exploring the use of cleaner fuels and technologies."

During consideration of HR.2466, the FY2000 Interior Appropriations bill, Representative James McGovern (D-MA) offered an amendment to transfer $29 million from the fossil fuel program to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, Representative Bernard Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment to cut $50 million from the program. Part of the savings would be used to compensate local governments that have federally-owned land in their jurisdictions for "lost" tax revenues through the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program.

THE MCGOVERN AMENDMENT. In House Roll Call Vote 281 on July 13, 1999 the McGovern amendment to transfer $29 million dollars from Fossile Fuel Research to the Land and Water Conservation Fund PASSED on a vote of 213 AYES to 202 NAYS . The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 213 AYES, there were (55R, 157D, 1 I). Of the 202 NAYS, there were (157R, 45D), with 19 Representatives not voting.

Of the 212 Republicans voting, 157 (74%) voted AGAINST the McGovern amendment to transfer $29 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 55 (26%) voted FOR it. Of the 202 Democrats voting, 157 (78%) voted FOR the McGovern amendment and 45 (22%) voted AGAINST it.

THE SANDERS AMENDMENT. In House Roll Call Vote 282 on July 13, 1999, the Sanders amendment to HR.2466 to cut $50 million from Fossile Fuel Research PASSED by a vote of 248 AYES to 169 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 248 AYES, there were (119R, 128D, 1 I). Of the 169 NAYS, there were (94R, 75D), with 17 Representative not voting.

Of the 213 Republicans voting, 119 (56%) voted FOR the Sanders amendment, and 95 (44%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 203 Democrats, 128 (63%) voted FOR the Sanders amendment and 75 (37%) voted AGAINST it.

8. The Environmental Votes of July 1999 - Dumping Toxic Mining Wastes on Public Lands

Fellow Citizens:

According to the League of Conservation Voter's guide to anti-environmental legislation in the 1999 Congress, one of the most egregious anti-environmental actions had to do with the disposal of toxic wastes from hard rock mines. As the LCV put it:

"Modern mines for 'hard rock' minerals, such as gold, silver, platinum and copper, operate on a massive scale. Open pit mines often cover hundreds of acres and descend hundreds of feet into the ground, generating waste dumps that extend to heights of several hundred feet and lengths of several football fields. These waste dumps often pollute surface and ground water resources with toxic chemicals like cyanide and sulfuric acid, and heavy metals like arsenic and cadmium. Mining waste sites are on the Superfund list of toxic clean up sites, and cleanup costs for these sites can run into the tens of millions of dollars."

The Mining Law of 1872 permits each 20-acre mining claim to use up to five acres as a "millsite" for processing mineral ore and dumping mine waste. However except during certain periods of time before 1997, the U.S. Government usually allowed mining corporations to use an UNLIMITED number of acres as dump sites on PUBLIC LANDS. In 1997, the Clinton Department of Interior announced its intention to resume limiting each 20-acre mining claim to a single 5-acre millsite. In the spring of 1999, the departments of Interior and Agriculture, for the first time, used the provision to deny permission for an open-pit cyanide-leach gold mine.

In response, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) introduced a rider to HR.2466, the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill which would have legalized unlimited mine waste dumping on public lands by eliminating the millsite provision. Aware of Senator Craig's intention, Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) offered an amendment during the House consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, to affirm the Department of Interior's interpretation and application of its 1997 intention.

THE RAHALL AMENDMENT. In House Roll Call Vote 288 on July 14, 1999, the Rahall amendment passed with a vote of 273 AYES to 151 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 273 AYES, there were (78R, 194D, 1 I). Of the 151 NAYS there were (143R, 8D), with 10 Representatives not voting.

Of the 221 Republicans voting, 143 (65%) voted AGAINST and 78 (35%) voted FOR the Rahall Amendment Of the 202 Democrats voting, 194 (96%) voted FOR and 8 (4%) voted AGAINST the Rahall Amendment to pre-empt the Craig Rider.

During the Senate consideration of HR.2466, Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Richard Durbin (D-IL) and John Kerry (D-MA) offered an amendment to remove the Craig language from the Senate's version of the bill. On July 27, 1999, Senator Craig offered a motion to table (kill) the Murray amendment. The motion passed 55-41, leaving the Craig language intact, and it remained in the final bill sent to the president.

Of the 54 Republicans voting, 45 (83%) voted FOR the Craig motion and 9 (17%) voted AGAINST. Of the 42 Democrats voting, 32 (76%) voted AGAINST the Craig motion and 10 (24%) voted FOR it.

HR.2466 was vetoed by President Clinton. In the final omnibus appropriations bill prepared by the Republican leadership, the Craig rider was amended to allow enforcement of the single five-acre millsite provision for mines proposed after November 7, 1997. This would still exempt previously existing mines and mines proposed but not yet in production before November 7, 1997, namely essentially every mine in production as of 1999.

9. The Environmental Votes of July and August, 1999 - International Issues.

Fellow Citizens:

INTERNATIONAL POPULATION CONTROL

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is a world-wide population and family planning organization. In fiscal year 1999, Congress blocked a planned $25 million based upon DISinformationtion that UNFPA had a program in China. During consideration of H.R. 2415, the FY2000 appropriations bill for the State Department, Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) offered an amendment to extend the FY1999 prohibition on U.S. contributions to UNFPA. Representatives Ben Gilman (R-NY) and Tom Campbell (R-CA) introduced a substitute amendment authorizing the restoration of up to $25 million for UNFPA under a strict set of conditions. UNFPA must certify that it does not fund abortion in any country. U.S. funds must be maintained by UNFPA in a segregated account, none of which may be spent in China. Most significantly, the U.S. contribution will be automatically reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount UNFPA is spending in China.

In House Role call vote 312 on July 20, 1999, the House approved the Gilman/Campbell substitute amendment by a vote of 221 AYES to 198 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environement vote. Of the 221 AYES, there were (46R, 174D 1 I). Of the 198 NAYS, there were (170R, 28D), 14 Representatives not voting.

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 170 (79%) voted AGAINST the Gilman/Campbell amendment and 46 (21%) voted FOR it. Of the 202 Democrats voting, 174 (86%) voted FOR the amendment and 28 (14%) voted AGAINST it.

WORLD HERITAGE SITES

The League of Conservation Voters has noted that it was the Nixon Administration in 1972 that proposed creating a treaty to recognize significant natural and cultural sites around the world. The U.S. Senate ratified the World Heritage Convention Treaty, and today some 150

nations have joined this cooperative effort to preserve world-class natural and cultural resources. Athough U.S. sites such as Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and the Statue of Liberty has been recognized as World Heritage Sites and the UN oversees the World Heritage Convention, this oversight is symbolic and has no impact on U.S. sovereignty or on the management of U.S. public lands.

In 1996, the LVC tells us, at the request of U.S. citizens, the UN World Heritage Committee visited Yellowstone National Park and concluded that the park was "in danger" from such threats as a proposed gold mine, residue from past mining activities, road construction, grizzly bear habitat loss and invasive non-native species. These symbolic findings infuriated certain U.S. and FOREIGN-OWNED mining corporations in the west and their political allies in the Republican Party. During consideration of the FY 2000 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, Representative J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ) offered an amendment to prohibit any funds from being used to add any World Heritage site to the World Heritage Committee’s list of endangered sites.

In House Roll Call vote 383 on August 5, 1999, the House voted FOR the Hayworth amendment to HR.2670 by a vote of 217 AYES to 209 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 217 AYES, there were (199R, 18D). Of the 209 NAYS, there were (20R, 188D, 1 I).

Of the 219 Republicans voting, 199 (91%) voted for Hayworth amendment and 20 (9% ) did not. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 188 (91%) voted AGANIST the Hayworth amendment, and 18 (9%) voted FOR it.

Thus, 91% of the Republicans in the House voted for the large American AND FOREIGN-OWNED mining corporations; and 91% of the Democrats voted against them.

10. The Environmental Votes of July and September, 1999 --The Logging of Trees from PUBLIC FORESTS had a higher priority than Fish and Wildlife Habitat Managment.

Fellow Citizens:

HOUSE

During consideration of the FY2000 appropriations bill for the Interior Department, H.R. 2466, Representatives David Wu (D-OR), Darlene Hooley (D-OR), and George Miller (D-CA) introduced an amendment to transfer $23 million from the U.S. Forest Service's budget for logging sales and the construction of logging roads into its budget for fish and wildlife habitat management and watershed restoration programs. The Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee had voted to allocate $23 million more than the Forest Service had requested for its program to assist private logging corporations in their logging of trees in PUBLIC FORESTS. The Wu/Hooley/Miller amendment would have diverted funds from a harmful program that subsidizes logging on PUBLIC LANDS to positive programs that protect fish and wildlife.

In House Roll Call Vote 293 on July 14, 1999 , the Wu/Hooley/Miller amendment lost on a vote of 174 AYES to 250 NAYS. Of the 174 AYES, there were (25R, 148D, 1 I). Of the 250 NAYS, there were (195R, 55D), with 18 Representatives not voting.

Of the 220 Republicans voting, 195 (89%) voted AGAINST, and 25 (11%) FOR transferring $23 million from the U.S. Forest Service timber sales budget to wildlife and fisheries management Of 203 Democrats voting, 148 (73%) voted FOR the transfer, and 55 (27%) voted AGAINST.

SENATE

During consideration of HR.2466, the FY2000 Interior Appropriations bill in the Senate, Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV) made a second attempt to transfer $23 million out of the Forest Service logging sales management and logging road building programs into programs to protect fish and wildlife. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) then offered a motion to table (kill) the Bryan amendment.

In Senate Roll Call Vote 272 on September 14, 1999, the Senate agreed to table (kill) the Bryan amendment by a vote of 54 YEAS to 43 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 54 YEAS, there were 46R, 8D). Of the 43 NAYS, there were (7R, 36D), with three Senators not voting.

Of the 53 Republicans voting, 46 (87%) voted to KILL the Bryan amendment, and 7 (13%) voted to KEEP the Bryan amendment. Of the 44 Democrats 36 (82%) voted to KEEP the Bryan amendment and 8 (18%) voted to KILL it.

11. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - Brownfields and the Final Votes on the Appropriations for VA, HUD, and Other Agencies.

Fellow Citizens:

BROWNFIELDS Mr. Gutierrez (D-IL) offered an amendment to HR.2684, o increase funding for HUD's brownfields redevelopment program, HOME investment partnerships program, and Homeless Assistance Grants.

In House Roll Call vote 392 on September 8th, 1999, the Gutierrez amendment lost on a vote of 152 AYES to 269 NAYS. The AYE was the pro-environment vote. Of the 152 AYES, there were (35R, 116D, 1I). Of the 269 NAYS, there were (180R, 89D), with 12 Representatives not voting.

Of the 215 Republicans voting, 180 (84%) voted AGAINST increased funding for brownfields redevelopment, and 35 (16%) voted FOR it. Of the 205 Democrats voting, 116 (57%) voted FOR increased funding, and 89 (43%) voted AGAINST.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT. In House Roll Call vote 402 on September 9th, 1999, the Democratic motion to recommit HR.2684 with instructions to change failed on a vote of 207 AYES to 215 NAYS. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 207 AYES, there were (206D, I I). Of the 215 NAYS there were (213R, 2D), with 12 Representatives not voting.

Of the 213 Republicans voting, all 213 (100%) voted AGAINST recommiting HR.2684 with instructions to change. Of, the 208 Democrats voting, 206 (99%) voted FOR recommital and and 2 voted AGAINST recommital.

FINAL VOTE. In House Roll Call vote 403, HR.2684, the appropriations bill for the VA, HUD, and Other Agencies, passed on vote of 235 AYES to 187 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 235 AYES there were (196R, 39D). Of the 187 NAYS there were (18R, 168D, 1 I), with 12 Representatives not voting.

Of the 214 Republicans voting, 196 (92%) voted FOR the bill, and 18 (8%) voted AGAINST the bill. Of the 207 Democrats voting, 168 (81%) voted AGAINST the bill and 39 (18%) voted FOR it.

12. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - Wildlife Surveys.

Fellow Citizens:

THE SENATE VOTES TO UPHOLD A RIDER LIMITING DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AGRICULTURE WILDLIFE SURVEYS

The League of Conservation Voters explains:

"The Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill contained dozens of anti-environment riders that threatened America's public lands and wildlife. One of the most potentially damaging riders would have affected the way the departments of Interior and Agriculture amend resource management plans, issue leases or carry out other management activities in national forests or on Bureau of Land Management lands. The rider would have allowed agency officials making these decisions to avoid collecting or considering any new scientific data on wildlife. This, in effect, would have undermined the agency's own regulations, which require the collection of population data for certain rare or important species.

The rider was designed to overturn a February 1999 decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Forest Service had violated National Forest Management Act regulations and the Chattahoochee Forest Management Plan by not compiling adequate scientific data on wildlife populations in its management of the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia. However, the rider also had broad implications for wildlife and public lands nationwide, threatening the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and new scientific recommendations for management planning in national forests."

Senator Chuck Robb (D-VA) introduced an amendment to remove the rider to HR.2466 limiting DOI and DOA Wildlife Surveys.

In Senate Roll Call vote 266 on September 9th, 1999, the Robb amendment lost on a vote of 45 YEAS to 52 NAYS, with two Senators not voting. The AYE vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 41 YEAS, there were (4R, 41D). Of the 52 NAYS, there were (49R, 3D).

Of the 53 Republicans voting, 49 (92%) voted AGAINST the Robb amendment, and 4 (8%) voted FOR it. Of the 44 Democrats voting, 41 (93%) voted FOR the Robb amendment, and 3 (7%) voted AGAINST it.

13. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - Fuel Efficiency Standards

Fellow Citizens:

FUEL-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.

The League of Conservation Voters tells us: "The tailpipes of U.S. cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and other light trucks emit 20 percent of U.S. global warming pollution in the form of carbon dioxide. Thus, the United States can substantially cut its contribution to global warming if it improves vehicle mileage per gallon by raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that automobile manufacturers must meet."

"Current CAFE standards–27.5 miles per gallon for cars, 20.7 miles per gallon for SUVs and other light trucks–already keep millions of tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by reducing the amount of fossil fuel burned. Although technologies exist to improve fuel economy, the federal government has not significantly altered these standards for more than 10 years. Since 1995, Department of Transportation appropriations bills have included a rider, first introduced by House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), barring the Department from using its existing authority to increase CAFE standards."

"During consideration of the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, Senators Slade Gorton (R-WA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Bryan (D-NV) introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the freeze on CAFE standards should end."

In Senate Vote 275 on September 15, 1999, the Gorton/Feinstein/Bryan non-binding resolution lost on a vote of 40 YEAS to 55 NAYS, with four Senators not voting. The YEA vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 40 YEAS, there were 6R, 34D). Of the 55 NAYS, there were (47R, 9D).

Thus, of the 53 Republicans voting, 47 (89%) voted AGAINST the resolution to end the freeze on fuel-efficiency standards, and 6 (11%) for FOR it. Of the 43 Democrats voting, 34 (79%) voted FOR the resolution and 9 (21%) voted against it.

14. The Environmental Votes of September, 1999 - A Give-Away to Big Oil

Fellow Citizens:

THE GIVE-AWAY TO BIG OIL AND THE CONTINUED LOOTING OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The League of Conservation Voters tells us: "Companies that drill for oil and gas on public lands pay for the privilege in the form of royalties. Although oil companies are supposed to pay a royalty based on a percentage of gross proceeds, the industry has instead used a 'posted price' which can differ by as much as $2 per barrel from the actual daily market price of oil. Since 1991, oil and gas companies have underpaid royalties by more than $2 billion. This has the additional effect of shortchanging the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which allocates a portion of oil royalty revenue to the purchase of important natural places and habitat."

"SINCE 1991, OIL AND GAS COMPANIES HAVE UNDERPAID ROYALTIES BY MORE THAN $2 BILLION."

"For the past three years, the Interior Department has sought to institute reforms that would create a fair, market-based payment process for oil royalties and make it easier for the government to catch discrepancies in royalty payments. However, members of Congress from oil-producing states have used an array of riders and other legislative tools to prevent the Interior Department from implementing those reforms as rules."

"During consideration of the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) offered an amendment that would impose a moratorium on implementing new rules for oil valuation."

In Roll Call vote 293 on September 23rd, 1999, the Hutchinson/Domenici amendment passed by a vote of 51 YEAS to 47 NAYS. NAY was the pro-environment vote. Of the 51 YEAS, there were (46R, 5D). Of the 47 NAYS, there were (7R, 40D). One Senator voted PRESENT and one Senator did not vote.

Of the 53 Republicans voting, 46 (87%) voted FOR and 7 (13%) voted AGAINST the Oil Industry; of the 45 Democrats voting, 40 (89%) voted AGAINST the Oil Industry, AND 5 (11%) voted FOR the Oil Industry.

After a threatened veto by President Clinton, the final omnibus appropriations bill, HR.3419, included a modified oil royalty reform provision, delaying implementation of the new royalty formula until March 15, 2000.

You lose some, and you win some.

15. The Environmental Votes of October, 1999 - The Continuing Battle over Dumping Toxic Mining Wastes on Public Lands

Fellow Citizens:

HR.2466 then passed the Senate and was sent to a House-Senate conference for reconciliation of the House and Senate-passed bills. On October 4th, 1999, Representative Dicks (D-WA) proposed a set of instructions for the House conferees which included language specifically prohibiting the Craig Rider and other language prohibiting other anti-environmental riders in the two appropriations bills for the Department of the Interior.

In House Roll Call 473 on October 4th, the Dicks amendment was passed on a vote of 218 YEAS (31R, 186D, 1 I) to 199 NAYS (185R, 14D), with 16 Representatives not voting. The YEA vote was the pro-environment vote

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 185 (86%) voted AGAINST the Dicks amendment and 31 (14%) voted FOR it. Of the 200 Democrats voting, 186 (93%) voted FOR the Dicks amendment, and 14 (7%) voted against it.

The Republican House conferees totally ignored the Dicks amendment and accepted the Craig Rider to continue dumping UNLIMITED toxic mine wastes on PUBLIC LANDS.

In Roll Call vote 528 on October 21, 1999, the final House vote on HR 2466 FY2000 Interior Appropriations the bill was passed by a vote of 225 YEAS to 200 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 225 AYES there were (198R, 27D). Of the 200 NAYS, there were (20R, 179D 1 I), with 8 Representatives not voting

Of the 218 Republicans voting, 198 (91%) voted FOR HR.2466 and 20 (9%) voted AGAINST. Of the 206 Democrats voting, 179 (87%) voted AGAINST HR.2466 and 27 (13%) voted FOR it.

HR.2466 was vetoed by President Clinton. In the final omnibus appropriations bill prepared by the Republican leadership, the Craig rider was amended to allow enforcement of the single five-acre millsite provision for mines proposed after November 7, 1997. This would still exempt previously existing mines and mines proposed but not yet in production before November 7, 1997, namely essentially every mine in production as of 1999.

None of this was reported in your local newspaper.

16. The Environmental Votes of November 1999 - Logging

Fellow Citizens:

In its analysis of 1999 environmental votes, the League of Conservation Voters haf the following to say on "Timber Revenues for Rural Communities."

"Nearly a century ago, the U.S. government decided to compensate communities adjacent to national forests for "lost revenues" from taxes that would be paid on the forests if they were privately owned. The County Payments program currently derives more than 90 percent of its revenues from the sale of national forest timber. Under current law the Forest Service must return 25 percent of all timber sale revenues to the 42 states and 714 counties that contain national forests to fund county roads and schools."

"Environmentalists have criticized the County Payments program as bad environmental policy. Not only does the program provide an incentive to communities to support more logging in their local national forests, but also it links the genuine needs of rural schools to the notoriously unpredictable timber market."

In the LCV critique, we learn that H.R. 2389,a law crafted by Representatives Nathan Deal (R-GA) and Allen Boyd, Jr. (D-FL) and by a group of moderate Republicans, actually has compounded the problem. It guarantees counties $449 million annually - a $224 million increase over current payments and it does nothing to de-couple county payments from unpredictable and highly volatile timber receipts. In fact, it created additional incentives for logging, because counties receiving $100,000 or more in guaranteed payment would have to allocate 20 percent of those funds for projects in their national forests.

In House Roll Call vote 560 on November 3, 1999, the House voted FOR the Deal/Boyd bill, HR.2389, by a vote of 274 AYES to 153 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 274 AYES, there were (187R, 87D). Of the 153 NAYS, there were (29R, 123D, 1 I), with 6 Representatives not voting.

Of the 216 Republicans voting, 187 (87%) voted FOR the Deal/Boyd Bill, and 29 (13%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 210 Democrats voting, 123 (59%) voted AGAINST the Deal/Boyd Bill, and 87 (41%) voted FOR it.

17. The Environmental Votes of November 1999 - Senator Byrd

Fellow Citizens:

In its analysis of 1999 environmental votes, the League of Convservation Voters said the following about Senator Byrd and "Mountaintop Mining"

"In mountaintop removal strip mining, coal companies blast away entire mountaintops to reach seams of coal and then dump the leftover rock and earth into adjacent valleys, burying streams under millions of tons of coal mining waste. Recently, a West Virginia federal district court prevented the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection from issuing new mining permits that allowed streams to be destroyed by mining wastes. The court ruled that these practices violate the water quality standards of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the stream protection provisions of theSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)."

"In response to this court decision, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) attempted to attach a last-minute rider to the Fiscal Year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The amendment would have exempted coal mining operations anywhere in the country from CWA and SMCRA. The rider would have created permanent environmental damage by opening up miles of protected streams to harmful dumping of mine wastes. In addition, it would set a precedent for other polluting industries to request their ownexemptions from the Clean Water Act."

"In an effort to increase support among Western senators, Senator Byrd introduced an expanded rider that would also have opened up unlimited amounts of public land to the dumping of toxic hardrock mining wastes. This expanded provision was identical to Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) millsite rider (see Senate vote 1). Although he was unable to get this rider inserted in the omnibus appropriations bill, Senator Byrd put the Senate on record on the issue by attaching it to a continuing resolution."

In Senate Roll Call vote on November 18, 1999, the continuing resolution in favor of Mountaintop Mining proposed by Senator Byrd (D-WV) PASSED with 56 YEAS to 33 NAYS. The NAY vote was the pro-environment vote. Of the 56 YEAS, there were (39R, 17D). Of the 33 NAYS, there were (8R, 25D), with 11 Senators not voting (8R, 3D).

Of the 47 Republicans voting, 39 (83%) voted for a Byrd amendment allowing mountaintop mining, and 8 (17%) voted AGAINST it. Of the 42 Democrats voting, 25 (59.5%) voted AGAINST the Byrd amendment, and 17 (40.5%) voted FOR it.

Because the House had already adjourned for the year, the continuing resolution could not become law, making the vote largely symbolic. Senator Byrd has vowed a return to this issue in this year’s Congress, but as of mid-August, 2000, this has not yet occurred.