After the House passed the land grab bill earlier this month, three versions of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA) are now pending in the Senate: S.25, original companion to HR 701, S. 2123 the Young/Miller Resource Committee passed bill, and S. 2181 the Conservation and Stewardship Act sponsored by Bingaman, (D-NM). Even though the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction over the bill, last week Senator Bob Smith held a hearing on CARA in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. No vote was taken, but several key members of the House testified. In support were Rep. Young, Miller and Tauzin. Opposing were Chenoweth-Hage and Shadegg. The rest of the witnesses consisted of environmentalists and one property rights advocate. Insiders report that Murkowski is cutting a deal with Bingaman to defeat Republicans in his committee before the scheduled mark-up June 14th. Make your calls to your Senators now. Use the Fatal Flaws of CARA report, which points out the dangers of this careless legislation. Insiders are optimistic this bill can be stopped if the grassroots floods the Senate with calls.

Alaska Republicans Oppose CARA

At their convention last week, Alaska Republicans overwhelming passed a resolution urging that amendments to CARA reflect "Republican principles of individual liberty and the freedom to own property." Spokesmen for the group say, "CARA goes against the heart and soul of what it means to be a Republican." Young backers tried to downplay the significance of the resolution by flinging Hillary’s favorite epithet: "the ‘far right wing’ had taken over the party."

Anchorage Daily News (1 pg): # 2143

Supreme Court Rules Against PLC

On May 15, 2000, in a rare 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Rangeland Reform grazing regulations. Organizations lead by the Public Lands Council representing western ranchers who graze federal lands attacked Babbitt’s regulation changing the definition of "grazing preference" among other concerns. The court ruled that it was not provided with "a single example" in which economic security was jeopardized by Babbitts regulatory changes. Justices O’Connor and Thomas pointed out that Plaintiffs chose not to argue that Babbitt acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to supply a "reasoned analysis" for the changes. The court did however, leave the door open for ranchers who could show harm to challenge the regulations on an individual basis. The issues in this case differ from the property issues at stake in Hage v US.

Executive Order Protects Oceans

Clinton announced, Friday, a new scheme to protect oceans. The Administration claims it doesn’t require any "new legal authority" to implement its agenda. The backers of the proposal want the ocean preserve plan to resemble the national park system where some areas are off limits altogether and certain politically incorrect activities are banned from other areas. The announcement follows months of frenzied preparation by federal agencies, rushing to produce yet another "legacy." Oceans don’t burn well, do they?

Tourism an Environmental Threat

Honest, we don’t make this stuff up. The Sierra Club has confirmed what we suspected all along. They hate humans. Hawaii’s Sierra Club has filed suit against the Hawaii Tourism Authority for doing its job. It charges the Authority cannot spend $114 million to promote tourism until the state conducts an Environmental Impact Study determining whether tourism affects the environment. Spokesmen claim tourists strain the natural resources with traffic congestion, air pollution and pressure on water and electricity supplies. Some will recall tourism was supposed to be the salvation of small northwest communities after the environmentalists successfully drove out the loggers. Guess they lied.