On this page will be a compilation of articles showing how the Republican administration has attacked the labor force, children, the poor, elderly and people of the U.S.A., beginning in the first month of office and continuing. According to Congressman Gephardt there is a very real consequence of this past election: that consequence is that we are seeing a repeal of laws that help the working men and women of our country. We are seeing a speedy end to help for the PEOPLE and a swift payback to BIG BUSINESS and OIL moguls! Keep these facts in mind when you go to vote in 2002!
IAFF Condemns Bush Attack on Fire Service (Thanks to EWK)
Budget Blueprint eliminates funding for
innovative FIRE Act
WASHINGTON, DC — The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is condemning a provision of President George W. Bush’s FY 2002 budget proposal that would eliminate funding for an innovative fire service program passed with bipartisan support just last year.
The FIRE Act provides $100 million annually for grants given directly to local fire departments and is based upon similar programs for law enforcement, programs that Bush has rushed to praise.
“This action by the Bush administration reflects a lack of understanding about the serious problems facing the nation's fire service,” commented IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger immediately after the budget blueprint was released.
“It is particularly insulting that one day after he highlighted the administration’s support for additional funding for law enforcement, the President is taking an action that cuts at the heart of the fire service, even before one single penny of this year’s appropriation is distributed to local fire departments.”
The language used to eliminate this important initiative was particularly harsh. Included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s subsection, it reads in whole:
“Fire Grant Program: An additional $100 million in savings are achieved by the non-renewal of a new fire grant program, which was authorized for only two years and which does not represent an appropriate responsibility of the Federal Government.”
This sterile language ignores the facts that fire loss remains at its highest level in history and that many fire departments do not have the resources or the staffing to adequately protect the public. It also comes as fire fighters race to the aid of thousands of Americans impacted by an earthquake in the Pacific Northwest.
“Every fire fighter in America should be deeply concerned by the Bush administration decision to eliminate this much needed funding to our domestic emergency responders and fire departments across this nation,” Schaitberger concluded.
The IAFF is already reaching out to its many Republican and Democratic supporters in the House and Senate to gain their help in pushing for the 2002 FIRE Act appropriation. The IAFF represents 240,000 professional fire fighters and paramedics. IAFF members protect more than 80 percent of the lives and property in the United States.
The president does not believe that funding programs for fire departments across the nation falls under the responsibility of the federal government. But, he has no problem providing grants and funding for local law enforcement. How can the president believe that providing grants for fire department programs is not as important as providing grants for law enforcement. Fire departments as well as law enforcement provide public safety services. When major disasters strike our country, who are the first to respond to try and stabilize the situation (earthquake seattle)? The first pictures from seattle were actions being taken by firefighters. Terrorist acts are a major concern in our country. That one day there will be an incident using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Again who will be asked to respond first to the scene to stabilize it? When these things happen, people call 911. When you call 911 you get police and fire/EMS. Firefighters and law enforcement work side by side everyday, school shootings, street shootings, drug labs, drug overdoses, hazardous materials events are just a few of the events we respond to together. Firefighters also have the highest incidents of cancer. The FIRE ACT would have provided grants to fund training, equipment, wellness programs and other fire department programs. The funny thing is that the FIRE ACT has alraedy been passed by Congress, and the president is going to cut it before even one dollar is spent. In many local communities law enforcement budgets out number fire department budgets 3:1. The city I live in and work for the fire dept. budget is $13 million and the police department budget is $30 million. One thing that cannot be ignored either is that this is a retaliation against firefighters across the nation, because the International Association of FireFighters (IAFF) stongly supported Al Gore for President of the United States. The IAFF has always supported Al Gore, because he has always supported us. Bush's history toward firefighters has always been anit. In Texas the state legislature had passed a collective bargaining bill for firefighters and when it got to the Gov's desk he would not sign it. There is currently a national collective bargaining bill in Congress for fire and police, which I am sure the President would veto if it got to his desk. I'm sure this is just one of the many attacks on Labor that we will see over the next four years. The sad thing is that this attack is going to have an impact on the safety of everyone in our country.
Bush Issues Anti-Worker Executive Orders(Thanks to EWK)
President George W. Bush issued four new anti-worker, anti-union executive orders repealing Clinton administration rules protecting workers and labor-management relations.
The orders:
Effectively bar project labor agreements on federally funded construction projects.
Require government contractors to post notices telling employees they cannot be required to become union members and may object to paying the portion of agency fees not related to collective bargaining.
End job retention protections that now cover employees of service contractors in federal buildings.
Abolish labor-management relations systems that serve the federal government and hundreds of thousands of federal workers.
"I am appalled and outraged at President Bush's decision to issue four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders sought by his corporate contributors and by right-wing ideologues," said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. "These orders undermine worker rights and dismantle thoughtfully constructed and effective working relationships between labor and management."
The AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department has called Bush's plan to ban project labor agreements "nothing short of a declaration of war on construction workers."
Word that Bush would issue the orders came just 48 hours after Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao appeared at the AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting in Los Angeles, promising to work with union leadership.
The Bush move "violates the president's own public pledges to consult widely, promote civility and 'change the tone' in Washington," Sweeney said. "His action appears to be pure retribution for the growing voice of working men and women in our nation's political life." The AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department has called Bush's plan to ban project labor agreements "nothing short of a declaration of war on construction workers."
Word that Bush would issue the orders came just 48 hours after Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao appeared at the AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting in Los Angeles, promising to work with union leadership.
The Bush move "violates the president's own public pledges to consult widely, promote civility and 'change the tone' in Washington," Sweeney said. "His action appears to be pure retribution for the growing voice of working men and women in our nation's political life."
Senate Votes to Repeal Ergonomics Rules (Thanks to LIBERTY FALCON)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:29 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a show of solidarity with business, the Republican-controlled Senate voted Tuesday to overturn Clinton administration rules aimed at combating workplace injuries caused by repetitive motion.
The 56-44 vote came hours after the Bush administration publicly threw its support behind the measure, saying the regulations would impose a ``vague and cumbersome'' and costly burden on business.
Democratic allies of organized labor argued otherwise in daylong debate on the Senate floor. ``We heard the same voices ... when they opposed the OSHA program,'' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said of the workplace safety agency created amid political controversy almost three decades ago. ``Well, I'll tell you this: It's reduced the number of deaths in the workplace by half.''
Kennedy said the bill was ``special interest legislation'' for reliable GOP campaign contributors.
That brought a rebuttal from Senate GOP Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, who said, ``The only thing that was special interest was the Clinton administration trying to jam this thing through in the last four days'' before President Bush took office.
The vote sent the measure to the House, where GOP leaders were weighing a plan to call for a vote as early as Wednesday. Passage there would give Bush his first chance to sign substantive legislation since taking office little more than six weeks ago.
All 50 Republican senators voted to overturn the regulations, as did six Democrats: John Breaux and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Zell Miller of Georgia, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
The regulations, covering 608 pages, were issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in January, four days before former President Clinton left office. Businesses were given until October to comply.
OSHA says the repetitive motion rules would cover 102 million workers at 6.1 million work sites around the country. The agency estimated that the rules would prevent 4.6 million musculoskeletal disorders, and in the first 10 years they are in effect, an average annual saving to business of $9.1 billion. Health problems such as carpal tunnel syndrome would be covered, as well as other ailments related to repetitive motion, force, awkward postures, contact stress and vibration.
OSHA pegged the cost of compliance for business at $4.5 billion annually.
Republicans and business organizations countered the regulations would impose far higher costs -- as much as $100 billion a year -- and would pre-empt state worker compensation systems in the process. ``This is really an egregious power grab, and any governor would say, `Wait a minute!''' said Nickles, point man in the GOP effort to kill the regulations.
The White House came down firmly on the issue. ``These regulations would cost employers, large and small, billions of dollars annually while providing uncertain new benefits,'' it said in a statement issued during the day.
``If implemented, they would require employers to establish burdensome and costly new systems intended to track, prevent and provide compensation for an extremely broad class of injuries whose cause is subject to considerable dispute.''
At the same time, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao issued a letter Tuesday pledging to ``pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics, which may include new rule-making, that addresses the concerns levied against the current standard.''
Democrats countered that under federal law, if the current rules are killed, OSHA could not regulate on the issue unless Congress passed legislation to allow it.
``I don't think any new rule could be promulgated. That's the box the Republicans are putting themselves in,'' said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle.
The effort to issue repetitive motion rules is a decade old, and has been controversial since the beginning with organized labor pushing for the strongest possible rules over the opposition of business interests. The Clinton White House battled Republican majorities in Congress many times over the issue, most recently last year.
In January, with Bush about to take office and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the outgoing administration decided to issue regulations. Business declared a high priority on overturning the rules, and allies in the Senate decided to invoke a little-known law, the Congressional Review Act, that denied Democrats the ability to delay or filibuster.
As the Senate vote approached, lobbying intensified in the House, both by organized labor and opponents of the regulations. Republican leaders lobbying for support distributed copies of the Bush administration statement in support of repeal, as well as Chao's letter, to emphasize the position of the new administration.
CONGRESS REJECTS WORKPLACE RULES (Thanks to LIBERTY FALCON and DIVINA REGINA)
(An MSNBC article 3/7/01)
THE MEASURE cleared the House on a largely party line vote of 223-206, less than 24 hours after Senate passage.
Democrats and organized labor protested vociferously, but President Bush has signaled he will sign it. Passage of the measure gave Bush his first chance to sign substantive legislation since he took office a little more than six weeks ago.
Republicans and the Bush administration derided the regulations as too costly and extreme.
“There’s a sure way to make all the injuries go away, and that’s to make all the jobs go away,” said Rep. Anne Northup of Kentucky, one of numerous Republicans who argued that the rules would impose prohibitive compliance costs on business.
“Elections have consequences,” countered Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. “And today the Republican leadership starts down the road of what I believe will be a long list of repealing worker rights.”
The White House called the rules “vague and cumbersome.” And Senate GOP Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla., who led the GOP effort in the Senate, said the ergonomics standard was the “most intrusive, expensive and job-killing regulation ever handed down” by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
But union officials said it appeared that organized labor was paying the price for its support of Democrats and former Vice President Al Gore in the November elections.
LABOR UNIONS BLAST ‘SHAMEFUL’ MOVE
“It’s a shameful portrayal of what this Congress is all about when I thought we were entering into a new era of bipartisanship,” said Bill Borwegen, occupational health and safety director for the Service Employees International Union.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said the Senate vote was “a naked payoff to big business contributors who have opposed every effort to enact a standard protecting workers.”
OSHA said the repetitive-motion rules would have covered 102 million workers at 6.1 million work sites around the country. The agency estimated that the rules would have prevented 4.6 million musculoskeletal disorders, and saved businesses $9.1 billion annually the first 10 years.
Health problems such as carpal tunnel syndrome would have been covered, as well as other ailments related to repetitive motion, force, awkward postures, contact stress and vibration.
OSHA said compliance could cost businesses $4.5 billion annually. OSHA said the savings from fewer injuries and higher productivity would exceed the cost.
But Republicans and business organizations countered the regulations were too broad and would have imposed far higher costs — as much as $100 billion a year. One business group put the cost of the regulation as high as $125.6 billion a year.
The regulations, which had been the subject of a decade-long political fight, were issued four days before Bush took office. They could have require businesses to make adjustments to work stations and to pay for some health care and medical leave if they determined an employee suffers from repetitive-stress injuries caused by work. Businesses were given until October to comply.
COMPLAINTS OVER DEBATE TIME
Since Bush took office Jan. 20, he has rolled back a handful of other policies favored by unions. He issued new regulations that include making it easier for union members to stop their dues from financing political activities and revoking the “project labor agreement,” which requires contractors in many federally financed projects to be unionized.
To bring the workplace rules to a vote, Senate Republicans adopted a little-used legislative maneuver that blocks any opportunity for delay, filibuster or compromise and would prevent any similar ergonomics regulations from being issued. The measure at hand was not a bill, but a “special resolution of disapproval,” a maneuver Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., denounced as a “stealth attack.”
Advertisement
“Instead of helping hard-working Americans, this resolution is a big thank-you to big business for all their support” of Republicans, Kennedy said. “It’s politics at its worst. And it leaves average American workers defenseless against today’s workplace injuries.”
House officials on Tuesday paved the way for the floor vote under similarly restrictive rules.
Debate in the House over the repeal of the regulation was limited to one hour, a fraction of the 10 hours the Senate spent hashing over the contentious issue.
“This is about shortcutting the deliberative process,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., complained. “But most important, this is about denying American workers, your constituents, the reasonable, medically sound and scientifically justified protection of their government.”
DEBATE OVER MEDICAL PROBLEMS
Ergonomics, the science of designing equipment to reduce fatigue and discomfort, is at the heart of the debate over the cause and treatment of what scientists call musculoskeletal disorders, or MSDs.
Workers who perform certain tasks over and over, such as those who work on computer keyboards, at meat-cutting plants and in health care facilities where they repeatedly lift or turn patients or medical equipment, can be prone to these injuries, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
A January report by the academy said MSDs affected about 1 million U.S. workers and cost between $45 billion and $54 billion in compensation expenses, lost wages and decreased productivity.
The OSHA rule requires companies to advise their workers of possible injury risks and the importance of promptly reporting symptoms. They are not required to change the way work is done unless an employee is hurt on the job or has symptoms of a work-related injury.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said that if the ergonomics standard were repealed, she would “pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics” that might include making a new rule that responded to the concerns of critics.
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, one of the six Democrats to vote in favor of repeal, said he would introduce a bill Wednesday that would allow for the creation of a new ergonomics rule that addresses critics’ concerns.
A key criticism of the Clinton ergonomics rule was that it provides injured workers with 90 percent of their lost pay instead of the two-thirds pay that is common in most state workers’ compensation systems.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2001 CONTACT: Jenny Backus
(202) 863-8148
Republicans Defeat Effort To Put Medicare Surplus In 'Lockbox'
Clears Way For Bush To Use Medicare Surplus For Tax Cut
(This article is from the Democrat National Committee at democrats.org)
Washington, D.C. -- Senate Republicans defeated a measure yesterday that would have kept the Medicare surplus from being spent on anything other than Medicare or debt reduction, putting the financial health of the program in question and making it possible for George W. Bush to use the money to fund his massive tax cut.
"These actions by the Republicans are the height of irresponsibility," said Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Throughout the campaign Bush made vague promises about 'reforming' Medicare. Apparently his idea of reform is stealing millions of dollars from the program. Instead of using money from the surplus to shore it up, they are doing the opposite: taking money from Medicare to make sure they have enough for their tax cut for the rich. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare, and it's deeply disappointing to see the Republicans walk away from this crucial program. The Democratic proposal would have helped ensure Medicare's fiscal health for years."
According to an article in today's New York Times, "The effect of the vote was to leave on the table hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade that President Bush and Congress may need to help pay for the administration's proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut and increased spending on the military and other programs." [New York Times, 3/14/01]
Reaction to the Republican move was strong. An editorial in today's Washington Post said, "The effect [of not protecting the Medicare surplus] would be to exhaust the trust fund earlier than otherwise would be the case." Noting that Senate Democrats - who voted unanimously for the bill - picked up three Republican votes as well, the Post said, "A majority of the Senate is unhappy with the budget ploy, we think with good cause. … what the president would be doing is transferring resources from Medicare recipients to mostly well-off taxpayers."
Pointing out that yesterday's move was little more than an effort to find further funding for Bush's tax plan, the Post concluded by saying, "Judged by a realistic standard, the tax cut is more than the government can responsibly afford. Proponents say that it would result in fiscal discipline, but our sense is that it would have precisely the opposite effect. Neither party is prepared, and with good reason, to vote for the spending cuts that a tax cut of his magnitude implies. The result would thus be a return to a policy of borrow and spend like the one from which the country is only now recovering. It's a reckless policy, and the Republican obfuscation in the Senate yesterday was a weak defense." [Washington Post, 3/14/01]
4/6/01 - Bush amended Executive Order 13202. Thanks to Wolfwomantalks (Patricia) for this release & her comments below:
He only did this after 2500 Union construction workers descended on the Whitehouse this week to lobby lawmakers and to protest the original decision. Bush's Feb17, executive order BARRED "project labor agreements" on all federally funded costruction projects. 32 Republicans signed a letter to Bush expressing disappointment in his original decision.
Organized labor felt the original Bush's actions was to punish Unions for there over whelmingly support of Al Gore.
This will be the 3rd or 4th proclamation he has had to amend!!!!!
~wolfwoman~ :::: on the howl
| Immediate Release | April 6, 2001 |
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 13202, PRESERVATION OF
OPEN COMPETITION AND GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY TOWARDS
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS' LABOR RELATIONS ON FEDERAL AND
FEDERALLY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq., and in order to (1) promote and ensure open competition on Federal and federally funded or assisted construction projects; (2) maintain Government neutrality towards Government contractors= labor relations on Federal and federally funded or assisted construction projects; (3) reduce construction costs to the Federal Government and to the tax-payers; (4) expand job opportunities, especially for small and disadvantaged businesses; (5) prevent discrimination against Government contractors or their employees based upon labor affiliation or lack thereof; and (6) prevent the inefficiency that may result from the disruption of a previously established contractual relationship in particular cases; thereby promoting the economical, nondiscriminatory, and efficient administration and completion of Federal and federally funded or assisted construction projects, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13202 of February 17, 2001, is amended by adding to section 5 of that order the following new subsection: (3) The head of an executive agency, upon application of an awarding authority, a recipient of grants or financial assistance, a party to a cooperative agreement, or a construction manager acting on behalf of the foregoing, may exempt a particular project from the requirements of any or all of the provisions of sections 1 and 3 of this order, if the agency head finds: (i) that the
awarding authority, recipient of grants or financial assistance,
party to a cooperative agreement, or construction manager acting
on behalf of the foregoing had issued or was a party to, as of
the date of this order, bid specifications, project agreements,
agree-ments with one or more labor organizations, or other
controlling documents with respect to that particular project,
which contained any of the requirements or prohibitions set forth
in sections 1(a) or (b) of this order; and (ii) that one or more
construction contracts subject to such requirements or
prohibitions had been awarded as of the date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 6, 2001.
REPUBLICANS PLAN TO REPEAL MORE THAN 45 OF CLINTON'S ORDERS WHICH PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, PROTECT CHILDREN & PROTECT THE PUBLIC
GOP targets 45 Clinton regulations
Plans under way to overturn wide range of policy rules
By Juliet Eilperin
The Washington Post
April 8 — House Republicans, working with the White House, have drawn up a list of 45 federal regulations they may try to overturn, including rules that imposed stricter energy standards for air conditioners, defined a child as a fetus that is viable after birth, and restricted snowmobile use in national parks.
THE REGULATIONS included on the list touch nearly every major area of government policy, including labor, abortion and the environment, indicating the GOP may pursue a broad assault on policies President Clinton enacted during his final days in office.
"This whole move toward midnight regulations is something on which Congress should send a clear message to future presidents," said Chief Deputy Whip Roy D. Blunt (R-Mo.), who is spearheading the effort in the House. "The kind of things you haven't been able to do during your term, you shouldn't try to do as you're closing the door."
'THE CLOCK IS TICKING'
As soon as he took office, President Bush placed a 60-day moratorium on all Clinton administration regulations that had not yet taken effect, delaying many until late next month. But under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, lawmakers have more flexibility: they have 60 legislative days, a far longer period, to overturn anything short of an executive order by a majority vote. In addition, they do not have to engage in the lengthy rulemaking process agencies must undertake if they want to revise the previous administration's policies. Congress already used this power to reverse a workplace safety rule imposed by the Clinton administration.
"The clock is ticking," Blunt said. If House Republicans want to repeal any of the targeted regulations, they can bring the matter up for an immediate vote. The Senate would then have to approve the measure, and it would go to the president's desk for his signature.
Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the review represents a growing attempt to bring accountability to the regulatory process after years of unchecked growth. His organization estimates the total regulatory budget amounts to $700 billion a year.
"It's been an increasingly preferred form of government intervention, as budgets got tight and tax policy got more scrutinized," said Smith, whose group has been advising the administration. "They ought to get the same form of scrutiny as other forms of government intervention."
DEMOCRATS CRY FOUL
But congressional Democrats argue the move represents an attempt by the Bush administration to dismantle some of Clinton's most popular initiatives before voters start paying attention.
"Their strategy is to move quickly, in some cases, in the dead of night," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "They're hoping to do all their damage early and then hope people forget. I think they underestimate the intelligence of the American people and our determination to continue the drumbeat on these issues."
Many of the regulations Republicans are trying to change were under discussion for years, during which the public had an extensive opportunity to comment, said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) "These things were very well thought out," he argued.
Conservative lawmakers, who were stymied for years under a Democratic administration, are moving quickly to press the White House for policy changes.
ABORTION RULE UNDER ATTACK
Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.) one of four abortion opponents who wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson in March, urging him to reconsider a regulation affecting human subjects in research studies. The rule, which was issued Jan. 17 and aimed at making it easier for pregnant women to participate in scientific studies, describes a child as "a fetus, after delivery, that has been determined to be viable." "I always thought a baby is a baby," Pitts said. "Knowing the Clinton administration's radical position on abortion, even 'partial-birth' abortion, I'm a little bit more than suspicious."
Abortion rights advocates, on the other hand, accuse their adversaries of trying to target the rule to provide new protections for the fetus at every stage of development. Such changes could undermine stem-cell research and other scientific projects, said Elizabeth Cavendish of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
"Anti-choice attacks on this rule are part of a larger strategy to entrench in law this idea that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are persons, recognized in the law," said Cavendish, referring to early stages of embryonic development.
'A BREATH OF FRESH AIR'
Pitts is not stopping there, however. He is also seeking to repeal a rule prohibiting minors from operating in workplaces that use power tool equipment, a restriction he said unduly punishes Amish teenagers undertaking apprenticeships. While no decision has been made on either rule, the House member praised Bush officials for their cooperation.
"The Bush administration is like a breath of fresh air," he said. "You get your calls returned. Since you only have a certain amount of time, its critical."
Industry groups are also pushing lawmakers to revisit several of Clinton's policies. Air conditioner manufacturers are outraged that former energy secretary Bill Richardson moved an efficiency standard up a notch at the last minute after they had already agreed to a smaller increase, and now both Bush officials and lawmakers are reexamining the rule.
The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, recently hosted Reps. Donald A. Manzullo (R-Ill.), C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) at a lunch on Capitol Hill to extol the virtues of snowmobiles with quieter and cleaner four-stroke engines. The group, which also brought a snowmobile for display at the Capitol, is hoping to halt a Jan. 22 regulation that would gradually phase out snowmobiles from Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks by winter 2005.
Kevin Collins, director of park recreation and use at the National Parks Conservation Association, said reversing the Clinton administration's decision would amount to "a catastrophe" because snowmobile traffic harasses wildlife, tourists and rangers, and pollutes the parks.
But House Resources Committee Chairman James V. Hansen (R-Utah), who is advising the administration on snowmobile policy, said Congress is merely trying to curb the excesses Clinton undertook at the behest of "extreme environmentalists."
Clinton "did what he wanted to do and what he could get away with," Hansen said.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
(Thanks to Ewk)
MARCH 20, 2001
Washington, DC
Bush Reverses Course on FIRE Act Funding
$100 Million a good start, but IAFF pushes for full $300 million
Just one day after more than 700 members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) hit Capitol Hill to lobby Congress, the Bush administration has announced its intention to restore $100 million to the innovative FIRE Act grant program.
The FIRE Act provides individual federal grants given directly to local fire departments for training, equipment and staffing. While $100 million was authorized and appropriated for FY 2001, $300 million was authorized for FY 2002. The decision to restore $100 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's budget request still leaves a $200 million commitment gap that the IAFF is pushing to close.
"This is a good start by the administration," said IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger. "But it's just the first step, and our members will keep up the pressure until the final budget contains all $300 million."
In late February, the President stunned the fire service when he zeroed out the program in his initial budget blueprint, saying it "does not represent an appropriate responsibility of the federal government." The IAFF reacted immediately and the resulting firestorm was felt on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
The reversal, which was delivered by FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh at a Tuesday morning meeting with the IAFF and other fire service organizations, comes less than 24 hours after White House Special Assistant Kirk Blalock spoke at the IAFF's Legislative Conference. After hearing directly from leaders and members who were extremely concerned about the FIRE Act decision, Blalock told the audience, "I have heard you and I will take this message back to the White House."
Schaitberger spoke for every one of the 240,000 IAFF members when he told the IAFF Legislative Conference on Monday, "I'm not going to rest, and I know you're not going to rest, until we get every penny of the FIRE Act funds restored and into the hands of fire departments - to improve safety, to increase staffing, and to much-needed training for our people."
"From the moment the Bush administration announced its decision," he continued, "we've been working tirelessly to convince our supporters from both parties in Congress about the importance of the FIRE Act funding, and they clearly have been listening."
Speaker after speaker, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), as well as Representatives Tom Davis (R-VA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Bob Pascrell (D-NJ) joined the chorus at the IAFF conference, calling on the President to reverse course and fully fund the FIRE Act.
