Well, it's time. Use it or lose it --the phone or email, that is.
Pardon the extensive cross-post, to bene, tweeters, conslink, birdchat,
but this is urgent stuff, I think.
Peter
- - - - - - - - - -
>From owner-sc-action at igc.apc.org Fri Feb 17 17:37:49 1995
From: sf.moderator at sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 17:00:18
Encoding: 6475 Text
To: sc-action at igc.apc.org
Subject: Sierra Club Action Update
Precedence: bulk


Sierra Club Action Update
February 17, 1995

SUMMARY

* The horrible risk assessment bill, H.R. 9, will be on the floor of the
House as soon as Thursday, February 23.

* * * Representatives must get calls from enviros urging that
them to oppose this bill. Call, Call, Call.* * *

* Some GOP moderates are trying to make bills less bad, and they should be
thanked.

* House Judiciary Committee has passed a takings compensation bill that
would benefit wealthy developers at the taxpayers' expense.

ACTION NEEDED:
CALL your U.S. House Member today (Congressional switchboard number
202/224-3121)
MESSAGE: tell them all Americans have the right to a safe and healthy
environment and urge them to VOTE NO on H.R. 9.


THE DETAILS...

Deadly Risk Bill On House Floor on February 23nd

The risk assessment/cost benefit analysis bill, H.R. 9,
could be on the floor of the House of Representatives as soon as
Thursday,February 23rd. This date could slip, however, to the
week of February 27th, due to fighting between the Science and the
Commerce Committees about their different versions of the bill.
Both are terrible, but the Commerce bill is worse because it
would apply to existing protection programs.

An editorial in the N.Y. Times entitled "The Next Environmental
Threat," provided a warning about this deadly bill:

"[H.R. 9] would require agencies to endure a cumbersome 23-
step review consisting of layers of 'expert' panels, some of
which could include individuals or companies with a stake in the
outcome. Even if an agency survived that process and issued a
rule, private parties could challenge [it] in court.

"Bad regulations and laws can be revised on a case-by-case
basis. But to strangle all rule-making...is to subvert the
democratic processes that have dramatically improved America's
environment in the last few decades." (2-12-95)

**Emergency, Top Priority Action Item** OUR REPS MUST HEAR FROM
US!

The only way to stop this monstrosity heading to the House
floor is to make sure every member of the House of
Representatives hears opposition to H.R. 9 from her/his
constituents. They need to hear it soon. And they need to hear
it a lot. And it has to be loud.

They need to hear from as many other folks as possible. Get
every family member (pets excluded), every friend, every
neighbor, every relative to call TODAY to register opposition to
H.R. 9. Don't let up unless they give up.

H.R. 9 affects nearly everything we care about, from
wetlands protection to clean air to endangered species. If our
opponents can easily pass this bill, who knows what they will do
to the wilderness system, the Arctic, or population funding?
Regardless of our favorite issue, WE MUST ALL JOIN TOGETHER TO
STOP THE MOST ANTI-ENVIRONMENT BILL IN 25 YEARS. Start today by
picking up the phone.


IN THE PRESS S.F. Chronicle, Constitution Say Don't Risk Passage of
H.R. 9

The San Francisco Chronicle wrote: "Regulatory reform is a
worthy enterprise. But the measures under consideration have
little to do with reform or fairness. They aim...to roll back
health, safety and environmental safeguards and permanently tie
the regulatory agencies in binding procedural and legal knots."
(2-10-95)

In an editorial entitled "What's a Life Worth?", the Atlanta
Constitution recently wrote about H.R. 9.

"Congressional Republicans...are trying to use the
inevitable horror stories of regulatory abuse to justify wiping
out a whole range of rules and regulations that business
interests have found cumbersome -- from environmental laws to
work place safety rules.

"Justice is not a commodity to be parcelled out on a risk-
benefit basis...As a civilized society founded on respect for the
individual, we do not let suspected killers -- human or chemical
-- roam free to prey on innocent, unsuspecting people. And
because, most of all, we are supposed to have values that cannot
be quantified in the stark, mathematical terms of a risk-benefit
analysis." (2-16-95)

GOP GOOD GUYS FIGHT TO MAKE HOUSE BILLS LESS HORRIBLE

A number of House Republican moderates are working to remove
some of the most offensive parts of the risk and takings bills,
H.R. 9 & 10 respectively, before they come to the House floor.
It is unclear whether these efforts will be successful, but these
members should be thanked for their efforts.

Please be sure to thank the following House members for their
efforts, particularly those that are from your state.

John Porter IL Sherwood Boehlert NY Benjamin Gilman NY
Marge Roukema NJ Doug Bereuter NE Curt Weldon PA
Christopher Shays CT Vern Ehlers MI Nancy Johnson CT
Constance Morella MD Porter Goss FL Richard Zimmer NJ
Wayne Gilchrest MD

The efforts by these and other members to oppose H.R. 9 are
starting to have some impact. Today's Congress Daily (a Hill
newsletter) reported that "Reg reform criticism intensifies as
proposals advance."

House Judiciary Committee Passes Terrible Takings Bill

Despite the efforts of the aforementioned members, the House
Judiciary Committee approved a takings bill that would require
taxpayers to compensate developers and landowners whenever an
agency action diminished the "fair market value" of a property by
10% or more. The takings bill applies to existing programs as
well as new ones. It would force taxpayers to spend billions of
dollars to compensate wealthy developers to prevent them from
undertaking activities harmful to their neighbors' property.

Initially, the Committee was going to vote on a narrower
version that only applied to wetlands and endangered species.
Eventually, their greed overcame them and they amended the bill
to apply to many other programs. Don't surprised if this
narrower proposal rears its ugly head again.

Some Judiciary Committee members, including Reps. Barney
Frank D-MA, Pat Schroeder D-CO and others opposed this bill
because it would be "the biggest new entitlement since Social
Security."

The prospects for the bill in this far-out form are
uncertain since it is opposed by a number of Republican moderate
representatives. The bill may be debated in the House beginning
March 1st.

- END -