Liberty
Matters News Service
November 6, 2007
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approves LOST
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Halloween vote approving the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) was no treat for America. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking Member of the committee joined Chairman Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) in rushing the vote on the controversial treaty and refused to allow just one more week of testimony as requested by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Lugar and Biden wanted only favorable testimony and carefully sifted out all but two critics of the Treaty. President Bush has pushed hard for its ratification, sending senior Pentagon officials to argue its merits and on Wednesday, Vice Admiral John G. Morgan Jr., deputy chief of naval operations, said ratifying the treaty would "give us treaty-based rights to restore order in the maritime realm." (The Navy assisted the crew of a North Korean cargo ship after they clashed with Somali pirates this week.) Chairman Biden falsely claimed that President Reagan's objections to LOST back in 1982 had been resolved, although David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, noted that not one word of LOST has been amended. Ratification of LOST would seriously damage U. S. sovereignty. It would: "complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists or weapons of mass destruction; Make our ships more vulnerable to terrorists or rogue states; Threaten the U.S.'s ability to set its own environmental standards; Give control of a substantial portion of the oceans to the International Seabed Authority. Ridenour says the treaty permits amendments without requiring nations to re-ratify it even if the changes are substantial. Wednesday's 17 -4 vote was an indication that some on the Committee are finally getting a clue as to LOST's ramifications. The 2004 vote was 19 - 0. LOST may yet run aground when it reaches the full Senate, however. "I am absolutely convinced it undermines U.S. sovereignty," Senator Trent Lott, (R-MS) told a recent news conference of GOP opponents. "This treaty will not be adopted," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). "There aren't the votes to pass it." Contact your senators and keep pressure on the Senate.
The More People Know About Sea
Treaty, The Less They Support It
Senate
Panel Backs Sea Treaty
House Passes Heritage Designation Bill
Last week, the House approved H.R. 1483, "Celebrating America's Heritage Act," by a vote of 291-122. The bill creates six new heritage areas including the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) and supplies special interest groups 135 million tax dollars to play with. Critics point out that heritage areas provide a creative way for the National Park Service to interfere in local land-management and trample on private property rights. David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) said, "Celebrating America's Heritage Act is a bill by lobbyists, for the benefit of lobbyists, with the taxpayer picking up the tab." Case in point: Lobbyist Donald Pongrace wrote the legislative language for JTHG, and serves on its board. His wife, Olwen Pongrace, is the vice president of the organization. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R- VA) have campaigned furiously against JTHG because it would impact large areas of their districts. They even asked that their districts be removed from the designation, to no avail. "To refuse such a reasonable request is a rather stunning breach of House tradition," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for NCPPR.
Congress Votes to Line
Special Interests Pockets, Threaten Local Rule
Congress Continues to Fertilize Farm Bill
Every five years the Farm Bill comes up for renewal and every five
years Congress stuffs it to the gills with more taxpayer dollars. This year the
House decided to provide $286 billion to help corporate farmers continue to eat
high on the hog and the Senate is unlikely to cut funds to some of their
biggest contributors either. Two-thirds of the direct payouts go the wealthiest
10 per cent of growers. In the past, the recipients of this largess have
remained anonymous, but now there is an online database where one can find out
where all that money goes. The database, "developed by the Environmental
Working Group (EWG*) provides nearly full disclosure of federal farm subsidy
beneficiaries for the first time." Armed with new tools, EWG has used USDA
figures that show how the big agribusinesses that receive millions of dollars
in crop subsidies each year pass "six -figure benefits through to many people,"
now identified by name in the database. The improvement came about because USDA
had to comply with Section 1614 of the 2002 Farm Bill, requiring it "to track
farm subsidy benefits through myriad farm businesses to the ultimate
beneficiaries." The USDA database was finally completed in December 2006 "and
provided to EWG following multiple Freedom of Information Act requests filed
years earlier." The site contains an amazing amount of information. For
example, EWG "finds that the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of the crop
subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005. Their average benefit was $377,484 per
person for the 3 program years or over $125,000 apiece annually." (EWG, as its
name hints, is not a source that most conservative readers would seek, but it
can be a valuable resource.) The Nature Conservancy has also been the
beneficiary of the subsidy game, according to this site. From 2003 to 2005 TNC
received $2,001,321 to restore TNC lands and to give technical and financial
assistance to farmers and landowners for installation of conservation
practices. The 1996 "Freedom to Farm Act" was supposed to slow and eventually
end the farm subsidy addiction, but that agreement has long been forgotten and
every five years its "deja vu all over again. Your tax dollars at work.
*Organizational Goals of EWG:
1. To protect the most vulnerable
segments of the human population-children, babies, and infants in the womb-from
health problems attributed to a wide array of toxic contaminants.
2. To
replace federal policies, including government subsidies that damage the
environment and natural resources, with policies that invest in conservation
and sustainable development.
California Fires; A Product of Failed Environmental Policy
The tragic fires in California last month were not caused by the Left's favorite boogeyman "global warming," but rather from decades of failed environmental policy. Temperatures in the area were normal; 84 degrees in Escondido and 87 degrees in Santa Ana. The Santa Ana winds that spread the fires to holocaust proportions were normal too. They arrive every year. What is abnormal is that the residents are not allowed to clear the brush surrounding properties in order to protect a little bird. Sound familiar? The City of San Diego "brush management guide" says vegetation within 100 feet of homes in canyon areas "must be thinned and pruned regularly" but that condition must be achieved "without harming native plants, soil or habitats." To further complicate the matter the policy states: "Brush management is not allowed in coastal sage scrub during the California gnatcatcher nesting season, from March 1st through August 15th. This small bird supposedly only lives in coastal sage scrub and is listed as a threatened species by the federal government. Any harm to this bird could result in fines and penalties." If landowners attempt to clear the brush after nesting season, they are hamstrung because maintenance rules severely restrict the use of mechanical brush-clearing devices. After another round of catastrophic fires in 2003, then-governor Gray Davis formed the California Blue Ribbon Fire Commission to figure out what happened. The results of the fires, the Commission said, were "loss of valuable watershed, wildlife, and critical environmental habitats," and "habitat preservation and environmental protection have often conflicted with sound fire safe planning." Now four years later conditions are the same, if not worse, and 500,000 people were evacuated and 1,800 homes destroyed. What is the definition of insanity?