|
|
Steve Daines on Environment |
Congressional Summary:Amends the Clean Water Act to prohibit the EPA from requiring permits for a discharge of stormwater runoff resulting from silviculture activities.
Opponent`s argument against bill: (Evergreen Magazine and Washington Forest Law Center): In Aug. 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that polluted stormwater generated by logging roads is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. [The ruling meant] that rain runoff from forest roads constituted an industrial (not forestry) activity, which should be considered a `point source` discharge under the CWA. The lawsuit was brought because forest roads have been dumping sediment into rivers that support myriad species of salmon and resident trout, all of which are at risk from the pollution. The ruling will require State agencies to issue permits and ensure that road construction and maintenance practices limit or eliminate such discharges.
In March 2013, the US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit: permits are not required for stormwater discharges from pipes, ditches and channels along logging roads. [This legislation supports the Supreme Court ruling, against the Ninth Circuit conclusion].
Proponent`s argument for bill: (Press release by sponsors):
Sen. WYDEN (D-OR): `We need a healthy timber industry to provide timber jobs and to do the restoration work that ensures healthy forests. The way to do that is to stop litigating questions that have already been answered.`
Sen. CRAPO (R-ID): `The jobs and economic activities relating to the forest products industry are critical to the Pacific Northwest. The Clean Water Act was not intended to regulate stormwater runoff on forest roads.`
Rep. HERRERA BEUTLER (R-WA): `At the heart of our efforts are the moms and dads employed by healthy, working forests--and passing this law will help make sure they have jobs, and will help make our forests healthy.`
A BILL to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to protect and conserve species and the lawful possession of certain ivory in the United States.
Argument in opposition from National Geographic news Aug. 29, 2014:
Since 1989, [there has been a worldwide] `ban` the international trade in ivory after a ferocious wave of poaching in Africa. Some conservationists say that a limited legal ivory trade is needed to satiate demand, especially in China, in a controlled manner. Many others argue that the 1989 ban must be kept in place to protect elephants.
Elizabeth Bennett, of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), says it is impossible to have a controlled trade in elephant ivory. Bennett says she examined the prospect for a legal market in ivory and concluded that because corruption in some countries among certain government officials is so pervasive. The overarching problem is that `once illegal ivory has entered the legal trade, it`s difficult or impossible for enforcement officers to know what`s legal and illegal.`
Argument in favor from NRA`s Institute for Legislative Action:
In a supposed attempt to preserve African elephants, the Obama administration has begun a series of arbitrary decrees that will destroy the value of property held by countless gun owners, art collectors, musicians and others.
For decades, the US has banned the commercial importation of African elephant ivory other than antique items. However, legally [previously] imported ivory may be sold within the US. On Feb. 11, 2014, the Obama administration announced a proposal to ban all US commercial trade in elephant ivory. Since ivory is used in items such as firearms, knives, furniture, jewelry, art, and musical instruments, the ban would effectively make these items valueless for their owners.
The Lawful Ivory Protection Act would return the rules on importation and possession of lawful ivory to those that were in effect before Feb. 2014.
Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska`s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.
Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):