A newsletter covering regulatory reform efforts in Washington and accross America, published by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 300 Eye St, NE #3, Washington, D C 20002, 202/543/1286, Fax 202/543/4779, E-Mail, [email protected], Web http://www.nationalcenter.org/.
Issue #46 * August 15, 1996 * David A. Ridenour, Editor
Companies that produce insecticides, textiles, electronic equipment, paints and varnish and even detergents may soon be subject to a new level of government regulation - international regulation. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) - created ostensibly to reduce the risks of chemical weapons - is awaiting ratification by the U.S. Senate. Critics of the convention argue that the treaty would not only heighten the threat from these weapons, but vastly increase regulation of U.S. businesses. "The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency estimates that 2,175 U.S. companies would be saddled with reporting requirements and data declarations; others estimate that the burden will fall on 10,000 U.S. production facilities. This time-consuming reporting could, in turn, produced additional government oversight and regulation by agencies such as OSHA, EPA and the IRS," said Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. "No previous treaty has ever subjected U.S. private industry to international inspection." For more information contact Eagle Forum at 202/544-0353.
First Speaker Gingrich acquiesced to demands of eastern Republicans that the grazing bill be pulled from the "Presidio Bill" -- the omnibus parks and federal lands bill. Then he gave them free hand to water-down the bill down. Finally, he reneged on a promise to bring the grazing bill to a vote before the August recess.
Concerned about a Western backlash, Speaker Gingrich wrote to Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA): "As Speaker of the House, I want to assure you that I will work with all members of the Republican Conference to produce a grazing bill that will be considered by the House in mid-September. Working together, I believe, we can negotiate a bill that will address the concerns of both East and West."
The question is, precisely what are the western grazing concerns of the East?
On August 12, President Clinton announced a tentative agreement with Crown Butte Mines, Inc. that would to kill the proposed New World Mine project near Yellowstone National Park. Under the deal, the federal government will swap an as yet unspecified $65 million worth of federal land in exchange for Crown Butte Mines, Inc. - which owns the claim at the New World Mine - dropping its mine claim which is believed to possess some $650 million in gold deposits. Environmentalists had opposed the New World Mine gold mining project arguing that it would pose an environmental threat to the Yellowstone River and thus to the Park. But the agreement comes just weeks before the release of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was expected to give the mine project the green light. Even more disturbing is the fact that much of the impetus for locking up the historic mining district came from overseas. Late last year, the United Nations-affiliated World Heritage Committee designated Yellowstone National Park as a "world heritage site in danger" - due in part to the proposed mine. The President's apparent acquiescence to the international body has raised national sovereignty concerns. But sovereignty isn't the only concern: Some $233 million in jobs and tax revenues stand to be lost due to cancellation of the project. For more information contact Lisa Kirk of People for the West at 406/587-3478.
All correspondence to The Relief Report should be directed to: The National Center for Public Policy Research * 300 Eye Street, NE Suite 3 * Washington, D C 20002 * Tel 202/543/1286 * Fax 202/543/4779 * E-mail [email protected] * (C) 1996, The National Center for Public Policy Research. Coverage of meetings, activities or statements in The Relief Report does not imply endorsement by The National Center for Public Policy Research. ###
<<< Return to National Center Home Page
<<< Return to the Relief Report Index