Bush and the Environment

Last May BushGreenwatch reported that a 17-year veteran of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had filed a legal complaint against the agency, charging that agency officials deliberately used flawed scientific data in setting policy for protecting the Florida panther, an endangered species with only 60-80 animals remaining in the wild. [1]

Now Fish and Wildlife officials have notified the agency employee, biologist Andrew Eller, that they intend to fire him for "unacceptable" performance. Eller has spent the last 10 years working in the Florida panther recovery program.

The move follows the firing on July 9 of Theresa Chambers, chief of the U.S. Park Police, after she publicly stated that the government response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks had stretched her staff's capacities to the limits, and that she needed more resources. Eller's dismissal reinforces the growing perception that the Bush Administration is utterly intolerant of internal dissent.

Eller's legal challenge, which was filed jointly with the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), alleges that studies used by FWS inaccurately inflate the panthers' population in South Florida, thereby minimizing the amount of habitat the animals need to survive.

Specifically, the agency assumes in its population estimates that all known panthers are breeding adults, and that the population includes no juveniles or aged animals. The agency further minimized habitat needs by considering only daytime habitat, when the panthers are at rest, and not nighttime habitat needs, when they are active. [2]

On July 7, the Fish and Wildlife Service replied to the Eller's challenge and admitted using flawed data, stating:

"We acknowledge that despite being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, some of the information you are challenging has, over time, been determined to have limitations..."

Nevertheless, FWS asserted that it would continue using the inaccurate data until 2006, by which time several huge developments in Southwest Florida, within shrinking panther habitat, may be approved. According to PEER, Fish and Wildlife is under enormous political pressure to approve the developments. [3]

Commenting on Eller's firing, PEER executive director Jeff Ruch told BushGreenwatch, "When it comes to intimidating its own scientists, the Fish and Wildlife Service is about as subtle as a Mack truck. The Fish and Wildlife Service is signaling that under the Bush administration scientists who won’t play ball will be blackballed." [4]

Under government rules, Eller has 30 days to respond to his proposed dismissal. If FWS proceeds with its plans to remove him, he can challenge the action before the Merit Systems Protection Board, the court of the federal civil service.

###
TAKE ACTION
Sign a petition and support the integrity of science through PEER's website.

###
SOURCES:
[1] National Wildlife Federation Florida website.
[2] PEER press release, Jul. 29, 2004.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

from BushGreenwatch, August 5, 2004

Contamination of ocean fish such as tuna, with toxic mercury from coal-fired power plants, has received wide publicity in recent months. But now a new report by the U.S. Public Research Group Education Fund (PIRG) shows that fish in America's lakes, rivers, and streams are also contaminated with mercury, putting at risk sport and subsistence fishermen and their families.

Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, and problems with fine motor coordination. Mercury can also affect multiple organ systems, including the heart, immune system, and the nervous system over a lifetime.

PIRG analyzed data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which between 1999 and 2001 tested fish for toxic mercury in a representative sample of 260 lakes and reservoirs in the U.S. EPA's testing revealed that every fish sample taken was contaminated with mercury, and most of the samples were contained at levels that could pose a risk to public health. [1]

Fifty-five percent of the fish samples were contaminated at levels exceeding EPA's "safe" limit for women of average weight who eat fish twice a week. Seventy-six percent of the samples exceeded the safe limit for children under three who eat fish twice a week.

Most heavily contaminated were predator fish like bass, walleye, lake trout, and Northern pike, with 80 percent of predator fish samples exceeding EPA's safe limit for women. In 18 states, 100 percent of the predator samples exceeded this limit. [2]

President Bush's plan to reduce toxic mercury emissions from power plants would utterly fail to protect public health for the next 20 years. Unveiled in January, the President's proposal would put off even modest reductions until 2025, even though the Clean Air Act calls for maximum possible reductions by 2008. [3]

In the 2004 Presidential election, the nation's electric utilities raised $447,000 in PAC and individual campaign contributions for George W. Bush, compared to $65,000 for Democratic candidate Al Gore. In fact, President Bush raised more money from electric utilities in two years than any other candidate for federal office raised cumulatively over the past 10 years. [4]

###
SOURCES:
[1] "Reel Danger: Power Plant Mercury Pollution and the Fish We Eat," U.S. PIRG Education Fund.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Center for Responsive Politics press release.

from BushGreenwatch, August 3, 2004

A planned reorganization of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would lower the status of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), undermining the agency's effectiveness and limiting its authority, say opponents of the change.

Numerous employee and public health organizations as well as several former high-level government officials from both sides of the political aisle are objecting to the proposed shift. A flurry of letters urging reconsideration of the move were recently sent to U.S. Department Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson and to CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding.

"We urge you to suspend the CDC reorganization as it affects NIOSH," concludes one letter to Thompson, signed by five former government officials, including Eula Bingham, Gerard Scannell and Joe Dear, each a former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [1]

The change would downgrade NIOSH from an independent Center, which reports directly to Gerberding, to one of several agencies in a newly formed cluster known as the Coordinating Center for Environmental Health, Injury Prevention and Occupational Health. Under the new plan, the Director of NIOSH would report to the head of the Coordinating Center - a switch that critics say would likely mean less budgetary clout for the agency as well as a reduced emphasis on the importance of worker safety and health. [2]

Pushing NIOSH down the chain of command within CDC would "markedly diminish its effectiveness" in bringing "science-based considerations to the rulemaking process," the letter to Thompson states. "It was not the intent of Congress for the head of OSHA to communicate with someone five levels down in the DHHS bureaucracy." [3]

Other organizations concerned about the move are the United Auto Workers, American Industrial Hygiene Association and American Society of Safety Engineers.

A fact sheet on the reorganization, compiled by Sharon Morris, a former member of the Board of Scientific Counselors for NIOSH, points out that while NIOSH is the largest center within CDC, the CDC’s mission and focus already fail to include much about worker safety and health.

"The new CDC focus on health promotion during various life stages omits working, where we spend about 1/3 of our waking hours," writes Morris. Further lowering the agency's status, she concludes, will "make it considerably more difficult for NIOSH to fulfill its mission." [4]

###
SOURCES:
[1] Letter to US HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, Jul. 8, 2004.
[2] American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc (AAOHN) letter to CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding.
[3] US HHS letter, op. cit.
[4] CDC Reorganization Downgrades NIOSH fact sheet, compiled by Sharon Morris.

from BushGreenwatch, August 2, 2004

The Data Quality Act, a little-known law inserted into a huge 2001 budget bill, is undermining government protections of public health and the environment. The Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has overseen the law's implementation, has obscured and even omitted the situation from a new report to Congress.

"The law was written by Congress, but it was very vague. OMB put the meat on the bone, so they are reluctant to admit there are any problems" says Sean Moulton, senior policy analyst with OMB Watch, a non-profit organization that monitors the OMB. "The new law is a tool for them to be involved with agencies and influence their actions. OMB is a White House office. It's problematic to have a political office overly involved in the regulatory process."

The Data Quality Act was added as a brief rider to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, and took effect in October 2002. It directed the OMB to instruct federal agencies on setting standards for the quality of scientific and statistical information they use and distribute. It also required agencies to accept and review challenges to their data.

OMB Watch has found that in its report to Congress, OMB significantly undercounted the number of challenges made under the law, and understated the extent to which industries are challenging information that affects their business interests.

In one case, the Animal Health Institute, a trade organization for companies in the animal health and pharmaceutical industry, challenged data from the Centers for Disease Control showing that use of a particular antibiotic in poultry leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food.

This resistance makes it more difficult to treat people sickened by bacteria from eating undercooked poultry. The AHI alleged that the Center's recommendations were based on flawed data, and tried to have them removed from the Center's materials.

OMB reported to Congress that there have been no slowdowns in the regulatory process as a result of the law. However, it did not ask federal agencies the amount of time or money they are spending on implementation, or for input on how the law is affecting the speed with which agencies make and implement regulations.

Industries are also trying to use the law to block distribution of information. Although so far no such challenges have succeeded, the attempts suggest how the law could chill even intra-agency information disseminations.

For instance, a timber industry coalition has repeatedly challenged U.S. Forest Service data on the Northern Goshawk. The service considers the bird a "sensitive species," a designation that limits logging and other activities in its habitat. Industry's petitions sought to "correct" the data by having the agency withdraw entire documents or whole sections of documents--in effect "de-publishing" information.

"'Don't correct, just withdraw'," says Gregory, describing industry's tactics for changing the Forest Service's rules. "That would open the entire area to logging."

Moulton is most concerned that Congress is not getting the information it needs to assess the impact of the Data Quality Act on public health and the environment. "We want the General Accountability Office to do an independent study, to find out what the true impact of the law has been. OMB is too close to give an objective report."

###
TAKE ACTION
Tell Congress to investigate the Data Quality Act: http://capwiz.com/ombwatch/issues/alert/?alertid=6135321.

from BushGreenwatch, July 29, 2004

A new directive proposed by the Bush administration would grant broad environmental exemptions to numerous government agencies under the guise of national security. It would also exclude the American public from decisions that can have long-term health and environmental consequences.

Under directives for carrying out the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), agencies such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and many others would be given "categorical exemptions" from following federal environmental regulations if they invoke reasons of national security. Such exclusions would enable agencies to conduct activities in secret that could have serious implications for public safety - such as using or storing hazardous chemicals in close proximity to residential areas and schools without letting citizens know about their risk of exposure.

The directive would also allow the degradation of public resources -- such as the building of new roads through national forests for use by the Border Patrol -- with no input from the public whatsoever. While these agencies would still have to conduct environmental reviews before taking action, those reviews would not be subject to public scrutiny or public comment. [1]

"This rule is just one example of how the Bush administration uses 9/11 and the threat of terrorism generally to instill fear and basically prevent the public from learning what it has a right to know," Brian Segee, associate counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, told BushGreenwatch.

"There are legitimate reasons to keep some information secret," he said. "But these should be narrowly defined. Does the fact that Border Patrol is blazing a road through a national forest need to be kept secret? We don't think so."

Segee submitted a nine-page letter to the Department of Homeland Security criticizing the proposed directive on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy and the National Audubon Society. The Natural Resources Defense Council also submitted detailed comments, asking that certain exclusions -- such as those related to the disposal of hazardous wastes -- be deleted from the document. [2]

The period for submitting comments to the Department of Homeland Security has been extended until August 16.

###
TAKE ACTION
Comments may be faxed to 202-772-9749 or sent via email to ADMIN-S&E@hq.dhs.gov.

###
SOURCES:
[1] Department of Homeland Security website.
[2] NRDC letter, Jul. 14, 2004, Defenders of Wildlife letter, Jul. 14, 2004.

from BushGreenwatch, July 28, 2004

Between 1999 and 2001, the Clinton administration filed lawsuits alleging violations at 51 electric power plants owned by nine utilities. Several of the cases were settled, but most have stalled out under the Bush administration.

The lawsuits involve the issue of New Source Review (NSR), under which utilities are required to add modern new air pollution controls when they expand or upgrade their facilities.

But when Greenwire reporter Darren Samuelson recently reported on a document leaked by a disgruntled EPA enforcement employee containing the names of 22 utilities that have allegedly ducked the NSR requirements over the last five years, news stories began reporting that those utilities might be facing enforcement actions by EPA. [1]

Not a chance, said Eric Schaeffer, who quit his post as EPA's top enforcement officer two years ago in protest over the Bush administration's reversals on environmental protection. "The word inside the agency is that Leavitt (EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt) is furious that this news is out," Schaeffer told GRIST magazine. "In fact it's a political embarrassment. It just shows how the administration is holding up prosecutions recommended by its own staff."

Indeed Bush's assistant administrator for air and radiation at EPA, Jeffrey Holmstead, has made it his top priority to cripple the NSR rule. He has already loosened the way smokestack industries measure their baseline emissions under the rule. And in total-wipeout mode, Holmstead shepherded through a rule change that actually exempted power plants from installing state-of-the-art pollution controls when they upgrade. That coup, however, was at least temporarily blocked when a group of state attorneys general won a stay in D.C. circuit court.

The leaked list of 22 possible violators includes some of the nation's largest power producers, such as Reliant (now Centerpoint Energy), Allegheny, and subsidiaries of the Southern Company. "We've known about these cases for a while," says Schaeffer, who now heads the Environmental Integrity Project. "A lot of them have been sitting for years because there's been a mandate from the White House to keep them from happening."

Another obstacle is the fact that the Justice Department lacks sufficient funding to pursue more than 15 environment-related cases per year. It is already in the process of suing eight large companies over NSR issues. Justice has requested a 39-percent increase in its budget for Environment and Natural Resources, and Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) plans to request that the Senate Judiciary Committee press for those funds.

###
This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist Magazine. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine.

###
SOURCES:
[1] "Second Wave of NSR Cases Await Bush Administration Action," Greenwire, Jul. 14, 2004.

from BushGreenwatch, July 27, 2004

The Bush administration, which has already delayed strong, new health protections for miners, is considering further weakening those standards as it prepares revised rules regulating miners' exposure to underground diesel fumes.

Workers breathe in diesel exhaust from machines used to extract metals and non-metals in the confined spaces of underground mines. Numerous studies show that exposure to such fumes at current levels causes 83 to 800 excess lung cancer deaths per 1,000 workers each year. Other studies show that inhaling diesel particulate matter causes cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary problems. [1]

Under the Clinton administration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) developed strict new rules reducing the concentration of diesel particulate matter to which workers could be exposed. When the final rule was issued in 2001, mine operators were given a year and a half to make modest reductions in the amount of diesel exhaust workers were exposed to in their mines. They were given six years to make more substantial reductions.

But the Bush administration extended the deadline for modest reductions by a full year -- an act that was illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act and MSHA's own statute, because the agency failed to hold a public comment period before making the change. [2] Last year, the administration further weakened protections for miners by reopening the rulemaking process and issuing a compliance document that allowed mine operators to all but ignore the tougher diesel standards if they had any difficulty in meeting them. [3]

"It says 'you don't have to ask for an extension, just mention it to the inspector the next time he shows up,'" said Celeste Monforton, senior research associate in the Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Health Services at George Washington University, in an interview with BushGreenwatch. "What's the point of having a rule if you can just basically make the rule go away?"

MSHA is in the process of preparing a final rule on the issue, but it's unclear when the rule will be issued or what protections it will contain. "If anything, the rule should be even more stringent," said Monforton.

While the Clinton administration sought to steadily increase MSHA's budget and hire more mine inspectors, President Bush has held spending level or cut spending on mine safety enforcement. Congress, however, has regularly appropriated more than President Bush has requested for the agency.

Notwithstanding the increased appropriations, the Bush administration has done little to strengthen health and safety protections for miners. The few regulations proposed by the administration have mostly weakened those protections.

###
SOURCES:
[1] "Part III: Risk Assessment," Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners, Final Rule. Federal Register 66 (13): Jan. 19, 2001.
[2] Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977 (Public Law 91-173), section 101(a)(9).
[3] "Metal and Nonmetal Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Standard Compliance Guide" (Final Version, August 5, 2003), p. 6.

from BushGreenwatch, July 26, 2004

"According to the EPA, there are 823 sites where the death or injury toll from a catastrophic disaster at a chemical plant could reach from 100,000 to more than 1 million people...There are no federal laws that establish minimum security standards at chemical facilities."

So writes Dr. Stephen Flynn, who held major national security positions in the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, in a new book released this week.

"After 9/ll," writes Flynn, "Senator John Corzine (D-NJ) drafted legislation that would require chemical companies to identify the vulnerabilities in their operations and prepare security plans to address them...The chemical industry rallied nearly 30 trade associations...to oppose these new requirements." The Bush administration later supported weaker legislation backed by the industry.

With the report of the 9/ll Commission due out today, Flynn's book, "America the Vulnerable," is all the more timely, since it coincides with the failure this week of the Bush administration and the U.S. House to enact legislation that would strengthen chemical plant protection against terrorist actions.

Instead the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, chaired by Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), became bogged down in a jurisdictional dispute that appears to doom passage of a proposed Homeland security bill before Congress adjourns this week. The dispute involved Cox's decision to divide the bill into nine pieces, apparently as a way of rendering non-germane some 70 amendments offered by Democrats seeking to strengthen the bill.

Adding to the impasse is the fact that several GOP chairs of other House committees do not want to yield additional authority to Cox's committee. "When Congress reformed the executive branch, it did not take the next step immediately and reform itself," said Cox last Sunday in a national television interview.

The impasse prompted a coalition of eight national environmental groups and four labor unions--all of whom have been working to strengthen chemical plant security--to send a letter to Cox's committee. Concerned that almost nothing has been done on the issue in the nearly three years since 9/11, the groups pointed out that "The good news...is that we have options better than increasing physical security and hoping terrorists cannot evade fences and guards."

Instead, continued the letter, "Many high-hazard industries have readily available safer alternatives to current chemicals and processes: simple changes could reduce or eliminate the terrorist threat in those communities."

Responding to the chemical industry assertion that it should be allowed to implement its own safety standards, the coalition letter noted that "Allowing facilities to follow their own standards has not been deemed acceptable for airports or nuclear plants, and should not be acceptable for chemical plants."

The coalition urged passage of an amendment by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), similar to the Corzine proposal, which would require the use of safer alternatives whenever possible.

The urgency of the chemical safety problem was underlined in the coalition letter's observation that "The Army Surgeon General has ranked the potential for attacks on chemical plants second only to bio-terrorism as the top threat confronting America's homeland security."

The letter added that a RAND Corporation study for the Air Force stated that the risk of toxic warfare "is increased by the wide availabilty of materials throughout the United States, together with the proximity of industrial operations to large urban centers."

###

from BushGreenwatch, July 22, 2004

As the $350 billion transportation bill winds its way through Congress, few seem to have noticed a broadly-worded provision written by the Bush administration that could render secret nearly all information on transportation--even if the public has a right to know under federal or state law. The provision grants new secrecy authority to the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), now part of the Department of Homeland Security.

"The provision expands an authority already given to the Transportation Security Agency... which originally applied mainly to airport security," according to the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). "It exempts from the Freedom of Information Act any information that TSA considers 'Sensitive Security Information' (SSI)."

This could include a lot of environmental and public health information, from nuclear waste transport routes to toxic spills near shipping facilities.

"The new legislative language would expand TSA's secrecy-stamp authority beyond air safety to include any ‘transportation facilities or infrastructure, or transportation employees,'" notes the SEJ. "If any state FOI [Freedom of Information] laws currently require disclosure of such information, the new federal law would override them."

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) introduced the Senate version of the transportation bill, including the secrecy provision, on May 15, 2003. Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced the bill "by request," a term indicating that it was drafted by the Bush administration. "No separate hearings were held on the SSI portion of the bill," according to the SEJ. [1]

Carol Andress, an economic specialist with Environmental Defense, tells BushGreenwatch she has learned the secrecy provision is not slated to be discussed in a House-Senate conference, and thus would stay in the bill. The legislation's ultimate wording may be a mystery until it is out of conference.

If signed into law, the new secrecy language could shut out journalists and the public from important environmental information. Possible scenarios include:

* The Transportation Security Administration deciding that the conditions of a county's rail infrastructure are "Sensitive Security Information," even if poor track maintenance increases the risk of derailments and hazmat spills.
* Restriction of legally required Department of Transportation annual and biennial reports on hazardous materials incidents, presumably because they might reveal security weaknesses.
* Restricting the public's right to know about road and rail transportation routes for nuclear waste, because they could be terrorist targets. This would make it difficult for concerned citizens to learn about and oppose routes through heavily populated areas. [2]

Environmental Defense's Andress tells BushGreenwatch that it may be hard to focus attention on the secrecy provision. The transportation bill is already extremely complex, with multi-million dollar highway and mass transit projects on the line.

###
TAKE ACTION
Tell your Senators and Representatives to protect the public's right to know about transportation hazards through Environmental Defense.

###
SOURCES:
[1] "Senate Highway Bill Gives TSA Broad New Secrecy Powers," SEJ TipSheet, Jun. 16, 2004.
[2] Ibid.

from BushGreenwatch, July 21, 2004

Aggressive legal tactics by the Bush administration have deliberately undermined a landmark 1997 civil rights settlement with African-American farmers, turning the claims process into another chapter in a long history of discriminatory treatment by the US Department of Agriculture.

A report released today by Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) finds that almost nine out of 10 black farmers have been denied compensation for discrimination over USDA crop loans, even though U.S. District Court for the District Columbia -- in approving the settlement -- had described compensation payment as "automatic." Instead the USDA, under the leadership of President Bush's Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, has withheld three-quarters of the $2.3 billion agreed to in the settlement.

"The USDA aggressively fought black farmers," said EWG's Ariane Callendar, a lead author of the report. The investigation found that USDA paid $12 million dollars to US Department of Justice lawyers for 56,000 hours spent contesting the claims of 129 black farmers.

"That means the Department of Justice spent on average 460 hours attacking each farmer," says Callendar. And these figures, she says, represent only a small portion of the time and energy expended to avoid paying the aggrieved farmers. USDA managed to deny payment to 82,000 of the 94,000 African-American farmers who sought restitution.

African-American farmers brought suit against USDA in 1997 in an historic civil rights case known as Pigford V. Glickman (now titled Pigford V. Veneman), claiming that USDA systematically discriminated against African-Americans by denying them crop loans readily made available to comparable white farmers.

The Reagan administration eliminated the USDA's Office of Civil Rights in 1982, leaving African-American farmers no avenue for appealing loan denials they believed to be discriminatory.

In 1996, the Clinton administration re-established USDA's office of Civil Rights, and in 1997 made an admission of discrimination in its own study of USDA operations. Finalized under Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, the settlement was based on USDA's 1997 civil rights study, coupled with the absence of any recourse for black farmers to discriminatory practices from 1982 to 1996.

Over the past 20 years, the number of farms operated by African-Americans has plummeted from 54,367 in 1982 to 29,090 in 2002 (the suit included 94,000 farmers because many farms have more than one farmer). This dramatic decline, the report concludes, has been due in part to lack of equal access to USDA loans.

The report details "the willful obstruction of justice by USDA" and demands immediate action by Congress. "Only Congress can make whole the 82,000 farmers who were denied restitution arbitrarily, after USDA had agreed, in settling the case, that their discrimination claims were valid." [1]

###
SOURCES:
[1] EWG report, Jul. 20, 2004

from BushGreenwatch, July 20, 2004

Apparently determined to set off one more high-visibility battle over a controversial judicial nomination, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), set the stage for a debate today and a floor vote tomorrow on a nominee whose extreme anti-environmental record will be the focus of the debate.

William G. Myers III, formerly a top lobbyist for the beef and mining industries, has been nominated by President Bush for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps the nation's most significant appeals court when it comes to environmental precedents, the 9th Circuit covers nine western states which include some 489 million acres of federal public lands.

After serving two years as the solicitor (top lawyer) for President Bush's Interior Department, Myers stepped down amid a departmental investigation of his allegedly giving illegal favors to a politically connected Wyoming rancher. [1]

Myers, who has never participated in a jury trial, nor been a judge at any level, was rated "not qualified" by over one-third of the American Bar Association's standing committee on the federal judiciary. Not one member gave him a "well qualified" rating. [2] Myers is opposed by an unprecedented coalition of some 180 tribal leaders, conservation groups, labor and civil rights organizations. For the first time in its 68-year history, the conservative National Wildlife Federation chose to oppose a president's judicial nominee.

The reasons for such intense opposition are not hard to find. Myers has argued in court that the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional, and that there is no constitutional basis for the U.S. government to protect wetlands. He has compared management of the public's federal lands to "the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes" on the American colonies. [3]

In one of his two formal opinions as solicitor at Interior, Myers argued that the Bureau of Land Management does not have the authority to prevent undue degradation of public lands resulting from mining operations.

Tex Hall, chairman of the National Congress of American Indians, wrote last March in the Billings (Montana) Gazette that Myers "orchestrated a rollback of protections for sacred native sites on public lands, although such places have been central to the free exercise of religion for many American Indians for centuries." [4] This was a case in which Myers interpreted a federal statute to favor the mining industry at the expense of Native Americans, despite specific Congressional language to prevent undue damage to public land.

Newspaper editorials in the western states covered by the Ninth Circuit have been less than enthusiastic. Myers' hometown [Boise] Idaho Statesman said Myers "sounds less like an attorney and more like an apologist for his old friends in the cattle industry." [5]

In an editorial entitled "Unfit to Judge," Tucson's Arizona Daily Star asserted that "Myers' chief qualification for the job rests not in his legal acumen but in the fact that his anti-environmental views match those of the president." The Star went on to describe Myers as "a person who sees no connection between environmental policy and the health of the nation's natural resources." [6]

The San Francisco Chronicle was more blunt: "One of President Bush's worst nominations" with a "long record of ideological extremism" and "open hostility to environmental protection." [7]

When a Myers article warning that "environmentalists...are bent on stopping human activity whenever it may promote health, safety, and welfare" was noted in his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) reminded Myers that "the cases you were discussing" involved logging on national forests, racial discrimination in the siting of waste treatment plants, and protection of irrigation canals from toxic chemicals." [8]

The Idaho Statesman may have caught the spirit of President Bush's choice best when it quoted John Falen, former president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association: "Bill's our friend," said Falen. "It's been a long time since we had a friend in the solicitor's office." [9]

###
TAKE ACTION
Ask your Senators to oppose William Myers' lifetime nomination by calling your Senators' offices (Capitol 202/ 224-3121) today. To quickly look up and contact your elected officials, go to Congress.org and enter your zipcode.

###
SOURCES:
[1] Hartford Advocates, Oct. 16, 2003.
[2] Boston Globe, Mar. 22, 2004.
[3] San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 25, 2004.
[4] Billings Gazette, Mar. 7, 2004.
[5] Idaho Statesman, Nov. 22, 2004.
[6] Arizona Daily Star, Mar. 23, 2004.
[7] San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 24, 2004.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Idaho Statesman, Nov. 22, 2004.

from BushGreenwatch, July 19, 2004

The Bush administration's announcement this week that it plans to open nearly 60 million acres of pristine, roadless National Forests to logging, mining, oil and gas drilling and road building may be one of the largest environmental rollbacks of the modern era. It also dramatizes the urgent need for genuine campaign finance reform.

Industries that opposed protections for roadless areas on National Forests have given nearly $25 million in campaign donations to President Bush and the Republican Party, according to the Heritage Forests Campaign. [1] These same industries have contributed close to $5 million to Democrats. President Bush alone has received nearly $5 million in campaign contributions from industries that oppose environmental preservation.

Shortly after President Bush took office, the selection of Mark Rey as under secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- which oversees the U.S. Forest Service -- signaled that conservation policies were in jeopardy.

Mr. Rey came to the White House after a long career as a leading timber industry lobbyist, including stints as vice president of Forest Resources for the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), the leading national voice for more logging in national forests; executive director of the American Forest Resource Alliance, a coalition of 350 timber corporations formed by the National Forest Products Association; and vice president of Public Forestry Programs for the National Forest Products Association.

While the decision this week to open huge swaths of roadless forests to more clear-cutting and old-growth logging will have dire consequences for clean water, wildlife habitat, fisheries and forest ecology, America's taxpayers will also have to pony up.

Under the Forest Service's antiquated road building policies -- which the Bush ruling put back into play with its rejection of the Clinton-era roadless rule -- taxpayers pay the entire cost of building new roads into forests in order to provide logging trucks and drilling rigs access to the public's resources.

Currently, the USFS has a $10 billion maintenance backlog for the already existing network of roads in National Forests, many of which primarily benefit private industry. [2] The public will pay the tab.

The Bush proposal is open to public comment for the next 60 days. During two public comment periods, one under President Clinton and one under President Bush, nearly 95% of the 2.5 million comments supported the roadless policy. [3]

###
TAKE ACTION
Email your comments to the Bush Administration today.

###
SOURCES:
[1] Heritage Forest Campaign.
[2] Taxpayers for Commonsense.
[3] Heritage Forest Campaign.

from BushGreenwatch, July 15, 2004

In its aggressive campaign to water down proposed new toxic chemical regulations in Europe, the Bush administration is now making vague accusations that the European initiative violates World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements governing how nations do business with one another.

At a July 1 meeting of the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade Committee meeting, the administration submitted general comments that parroted the U.S. chemical industry's objections to the proposed regulations, known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals). However, U.S. officials failed to spell out how REACH would conflict with current WTO agreements -- despite recent demands from two U.S. senators that they do so. [1]

Prior to the July 1 meeting, U.S. Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT) wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, asking that he cite the specific WTO provisions that REACH would allegedly violate.

"We are troubled by reports that the position of this administration on REACH may reflect the interests of a narrow segment of U.S. industry without consideration of the broader ramifications for the U.S. economy, national interest, public health, and the environment," the letter stated. [2]

The REACH initiative -- the most sweeping change in European chemical policy in decades -- would require chemical manufacturers to provide the public with information about the potential harmfulness of their products before placing them on the market. It would also provide stricter regulations for thousands of chemicals already on the market.. Although the proposal would only govern countries in the European Union, U.S. chemical manufacturers would have to comply with the new rules in order to export their products to Europe.

The Bush administration, which has consistently favored policies beneficial to the U.S. chemical industry, has teamed up with American chemical companies to lobby against REACH and has already succeeded in weakening some of the proposed rules. Earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell himself stepped up pressure on the EU when he cabled U.S. diplomats with a list of talking points, urging them to voice these objections to European officials. [3]

In its latest attack, the Bush administration is working to rally support among allies outside of Europe, to show that REACH would create barriers to trade among nations. The administration's argument "reflects a lot of industry arguments, such as the new regulations being too 'costly' or 'burdensome,'" Mary Bottari, an analyst for Public Citizen, told BushGreenwatch.

"Once again, we have the U.S. position equals the chemical industry position," agreed Joe DiGangi, a scientist with the Environmental Health Fund.

Supporters of REACH say sweeping changes in chemical regulations are urgently needed, both here and abroad. Currently, little is known about the safety of chemicals manufactured in the U.S. or Europe. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. does not require companies to test chemicals for human exposure risks before placing them on the market.

###
SOURCES:
[1] US comments submitted to WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, July 1, 2004; Letter to US Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick from Sens. Lautenberg and Jeffords, Jun. 22, 2004.
[2] Ibid.
[3] BushGreenwatch, Apr. 9, 2004.

from BushGreenwatch, July 14, 2004

It took environmentalists years to break open the Highway Trust Fund to include some federal funds for public transportation projects. But now, according to a new report from the Sierra Club, the Bush administration wants to return to the bad old days, when asphalt -- and only asphalt -- got all the dollars.

The federal-state funding match for public transit and highway construction is currently 80:20. But under a new proposal from the Bush Administration, states would be required to pay half the cost of public transportation projects. The 80:20 ratio for new highways, however, would stay unchanged.

This tilt in the funding match would inevitably push local governments to build more highways at the expense of public transit. The Sierra Club report, Missing the Train, details why supporting public transportation makes so much more sense.

First of all, building public transportation creates more jobs than highway construction. A study this year by the Surface Transportation Policy Project found that for every $1.25 billion spent on new public transportation projects, nearly 51,300 people are employed. By contrast, only 43,200 are employed per every $1.25 billion spent on new roads and bridges. [1] That's an important reason why labor leaders around the country now support public transportation.

Public transit boosts local economies as well. The Sierra Club report cites examples from around the country -- including Washington, D.C., Dallas/Ft. Worth, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay -- where public transportation projects have revitalized neighborhoods and invigorated business districts. In many areas, business and labor leaders have teamed up to push for new projects.

Moreover, commuting by car is stressful: businesses suffer when workers are burned out before they even arrive. HR Magazine quotes Steve Stephenson, a senior manager at the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company in Greenbank, Washington. He notes that "people come to work jangled," and that "a 15-second episode can cause hormonal changes that last for six hours. That infects the whole day." [2]

Building new roads isn't the answer, the report argues, since new roads only generate more sprawl development and more traffic. In fact, only three years after new roadways open, traffic fills road capacity between 50 and 100 percent. [3]

The Bush Administration's new funding proposal for transportation projects is a gift to the highway lobby. It will create more sprawl, more air pollution, more accidents, and more stress. Commuters deserve better.

###
SOURCES:
[1] STTP Decoder.
[2] "What Sets Us Off," HR Magazine, Society for Human Resource Management, May 2003.
[3] American Public Transportation Association.

from BushGreenwatch, July 13, 2004