September, 09 2010, 09:24am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
Robert Johns, American Bird Conservancy, (202) 234-7181 x 210
Congressional Documents Contradict EPA Claim That It Lacks Authority to Regulate Lead Ammunition
Agency Wrongly Denied Petition to Protect Wildlife From Toxic Lead
WASHINGTON
Congressional documents contradict
the Environmental Protection Agency's recent claim that it doesn't have the
authority to regulate toxic lead bullets and shot that commonly kill and harm
bald eagles, trumpeter swans, endangered California condors and other wildlife. The EPA
last month denied a petition to ban lead ammunition and require
nontoxic alternatives for use in hunting. But the language of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, as well as the Senate and House reports on the
legislative history and intent of the Act, run counter to the EPA's claim, in an
Aug. 27 letter rejecting the lead ammunition portion of the petition, that it
lacks regulatory authority.
"The Environmental Protection
Agency's denial was based on false assumptions and an inexplicable misreading of
so-called exemptions in the Act," said Adam Keats, senior counsel for the Center
for Biological Diversity. "Given the EPA's clear authority and duty under the
Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate toxic lead in ammunition to end
unnecessary lead poisoning of wildlife and reduce human health risk, it appears
that their decision to dodge the issue was politically
motivated."
In fact, according to a House report
on the history and intent of the Act, "the Committee does not exclude from
regulation under the bill chemical components of ammunition which could be
hazardous because of their chemical properties." The EPA appears to have been
influenced by a misleading "legal opinion" sent by the National Rifle
Association on Aug. 20. The Center has sent a Freedom of Information Act Request
to the EPA asking for all documents related to the agency's partial
denial of the petition.
Last month the Center for Biological
Diversity, American Bird Conservancy and other conservation groups petitioned
the EPA to ban lead in bullets and shot for hunting, as well as lead in fishing
tackle. The petition referenced nearly 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers
illustrating the widespread dangers of lead ammunition and fishing
tackle. While the EPA is still considering the request for regulation of
lead fishing tackle, it denied the portion of the petition regarding lead
ammunition regulation. So far, 40 conservation groups in 16 states have signed
onto the petition, including organizations representing physicians,
veterinarians and zoos, birders, public employees, American Indians and
hunters.
"We are going to get to the bottom
of the politics behind the EPA decision - we are not going to let the agency
simply walk away from the preventable poisoning of birds and other wildlife,"
said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. "We remain committed to
making sure toxic lead is removed from the environment, and we're continuing our
campaign to see that through."
Lead is an extremely toxic substance
that is dangerous to people and wildlife even at low levels. Exposure can cause
a range of health effects, from acute poisoning and death to long-term problems
such as reduced reproduction, inhibition of growth and damage to neurological
development. Wildlife is poisoned when animals scavenge on carcasses shot and
contaminated with lead-bullet fragments, or pick up and eat spent lead-shot
pellets or lost fishing weights mistaking them for food or grit. Animals can die
a painful death from lead poisoning or suffer for years from its debilitating
effects. An estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each
year from lead poisoning in the United States.
For more information, read about the
Center's Get the Lead Out campaign and the petition to EPA.
Background
Section 2605(a)(2)(A)(i) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1968 as the federal mechanism for
regulating toxic substances, allows the EPA to prohibit the manufacture,
processing or distribution in commerce of a chemical substance for a particular
use. Lead used in bullets and shot as well as fishing sinkers is a "chemical
substance" falling within the scope of the Act. Although certain substances that
are regulated under other federal laws are excluded from the definition of
"chemical substances," none of these exclusions are applicable to lead shot or
sinkers.
In denying the lead ammunition
portion of the petition, the EPA in its Aug. 20 letter claimed "TSCA does not
provide the agency with authority to address lead shot and bullets as requested
in your petition, due to the exclusion found in TSCA SS
3(2)(B)(v)."
The relevant section of the Act
exempts "any article the sale of which is subject to the tax
imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986..." However,
section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code taxes firearms, shells and
cartridges. Shot and bullets are explicitly not subject to this tax. According
to a 1968 Revenue Ruling (IRS Rev. Rul. 68-463), "The manufacturers excise tax
imposed upon sales of shells and cartridges by section 4181 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 does not apply
to sales of separate parts of ammunition such as cartridge cases, primers,
bullets, and powder" (emphasis added). Because shot and bullets, as separate
parts of ammunition, are not taxed under section 4181 of the Internal Revenue
Code, the Act's exception does not apply, and lead shot and bullets are properly
classified as "chemical substances" subject to its regulation. The petition does
not ask EPA to regulate firearms or the manufacture and sale of ammunition, but
rather the toxic, separate parts of ammunition, such as bullets and
shot.
The Senate and House reports on the
legislative history and intent of the Toxic Substances Control Act are equally
clear and instructive. The House report explicitly states on page 418: "Although
the language of this bill is clear on its face as to the exemption for pistols,
revolvers, firearms, shells and cartridges, the Committee wishes to emphasize
that it does not intend that the legislation be used as a vehicle for gun
control...However, the Committee does not exclude from
regulation under the bill chemical components of ammunition which could be
hazardous because of their chemical properties" (emphasis added). The
Senate report states, "In
addition, the term [chemical substance] does not include pesticides,
tobacco, or tobacco products, nuclear material (as defined in the Atomic Energy
Act), firearms and ammunition (to the extent subject to taxes imposed under
section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code)..."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during
November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular