https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... tes-report
President Trump's efforts to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border could damage 22 archaeological sites currently supervised by the National Park Service (NPS), according to reporting by The Washington Post.
A 123-page internal NPS memo from July found that expanding an existing fence near Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument could harm artifacts from ancient Sonoran Desert peoples.
It noted previous research that found archaeological sites “likely will be wholly or partially destroyed by forthcoming border fence construction.”
Construction has already begun on converting a 5-foot vehicle barrier to the 30-foot-high border wall envisioned by Trump. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has sought to build at a quick pace in order to keep up with Trump’s campaign pledge of completing 500 miles of wall before the 2020 election...
According to the Post, the Department of Homeland Security has relied on a 2005 law to waive numerous federal requirements that could have been used to slow or stop construction, including those in the Endangered Species Act as well as the Archeological Resources Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mysterious- ... king-about
The Mysterious Whistleblower Complaint: What is Adam Schiff Talking About?
On Sept. 13, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to compel the production of a whistleblower complaint. The details of the complaint remain vague, but Schiff stated that it was filed by an individual in the intelligence community and determined by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern.” ...
According to Schiff, on Aug. 12 an individual (it’s not public who) in the intelligence community submitted to the inspector general a whistleblower disclosure intended for Congress. ......[but] it appears Maguire did not transmit the disclosure to the committee—as he was required to do under the statute—within seven days. Nor did he notify the committee about the disclosure or his decision not to transmit it to the committee.
On September 9, Inspector General Atkinson apparently wrote a letter (which has not been made public) directly to Schiff and the Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Member Devin Nunes...
...In the current circumstances, so far the Trump administration is honoring neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of good faith cooperation that the relevant case law contemplates. Maguire seems not to have notified the committee, in any form, that a credible issue had arisen. He blew through the statutory deadline with seemingly no attempt to communicate with the committee. It seems the only reason the committee found out about the issue was because of a letter sent to the committee chair by the intelligence community. In addition, from what is public about the communications between Schiff and Maguire, it seems that the agency head is not calling the shots here—as Clinton’s and Obama’s statements about the legislation seemed to envision—but, rather, some “higher power” outside of the agency is doing so. None of this looks good.
But in context, this incident looks even worse. In March, two senior administration officials told the Washington Post that the White House is “intent on challenging most, if not all, House Democrats’ document requests.” President Trump said in April he intends to fight “all the subpoenas” issued by the House...
In the face of a statute that already self-limits the required reporting to instances of “particularly flagrant or serious” problems, the administration will need a very, very compelling reason that is rooted in the public’s interest—not the interests of a particular individual—to justify not providing the relevant information to the committee.
Practically speaking, however, the executive branch holds a lot of cards in this game—after all, it is in possession of the relevant materials. Litigation could take years, well beyond the 2020 presidential election. As the matter has been determined by the inspector general to be of “urgent concern,” years of litigation and delay is not merely the “mischief of polarization of disputes.” It may very well be a dereliction of constitutional duty.
Some are speculating that the administration is trying to hide it because it could involve Trump or a senior White House official. Maguire apparently consulted the Justice Dept. before deciding to withhold the whistleblower complaint from Congress. Considering some of the things that have been coming out of the DOJ under Barr, I don't find that reassuring.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... ce-1496135
EDIT: Speaking of Barr's Justice Department...
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4618 ... o-consumer
The Trump administration and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to take up a lawsuit challenging the agency’s constitutionality.
Top Justice Department and CFPB attorneys argued in a brief filed Tuesday that the structure of the powerful financial watchdog infringes on the president’s executive authority.
The lawyers urged the Supreme Court to take up a case that could have potentially fatal implications for the CFPB, halting or weakening its efforts to police the financial sector....
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... hts-228112
Trump Wants a Torture Proponent to Lead U.S. Human Rights Policy. The Senate Should Say No
By ROB BERSCHINSKI and BENJAMIN HAAS
Rob Berschinski is senior vice president for policy at Human Rights First. Previously, he was deputy assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights, and labor, and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force.
Benjamin Haas is advocacy counsel at Human Rights First. Previously, he was an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army.
If confirmed, Billingslea would become the top U.S. executive branch official directly responsible for human rights policy: undersecretary of State for civilian security, democracy and human rights.
...Billingslea’s history promoting torture is well-documented. As a senior Pentagon official during the Bush administration, he advocated for the use of torture techniques, often in contrast to the sound advice proffered by top military lawyers. ..
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... ork-plants
Hog farms will have their products looked over in less time by fewer inspectors under a rule finalized Tuesday by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The new rule reduces the number of inspectors required at pork plants and also removes a cap on the speed inspection lines can run, prompting concern from groups that the rule will hurt public health as well as worker safety...
It seems they're reducing the number of federal meat inspectors by up to 40%, removing them from directly inspecting the meat, and letting the plant operators hire people instead - with no specific requirements for training the new inspectors. Considering that pigs can be infected with diseases that can spread to humans, and some diseases are not easy to find unless you're experienced and thorough, this doesn't strike me as in the public's best interest. Neither does the idea that inspectors will now be dependent on not being fired by the slaughterhouse owners.
The USDA’s Office of the Inspector General has already opened a probe into whether the agency concealed information and used flawed data on worker safety when evaluating the new hog inspection system.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... elf-police
The experience from a long-running pilot project that involved five large hog slaughterhouses offers some insight into the possible impact of such radical deregulation. Consumer groups reviewed the government’s data from the five pilot plants and other plants of comparable size. They found that the plants with fewer inspectors and faster lines had more regulatory violations than others.
Indeed, the pilot project gave no indication that allowing companies to police themselves produces safe food. Nevertheless, USDA concluded that self-policing would ensure food safety, based on a technical risk assessment that — in violation of OMB guidelines — was not peer-reviewed before USDA published its rule. Later, three of the five peer reviewers indicated that the study was fundamentally flawed. USDA has pressed forward with its rule regardless, dismissing this criticism as mere technicality....
It’s not only consumers of meat who would pay a price for this misguided and dangerous new rule. There are more than 90,000 pork slaughterhouse workers whose health and limbs are already at risk under the current line speed limit of 1,106 hogs per hour. Pork slaughterhouse workers will tell you that they can barely keep up with current line speeds. They work in noisy, slippery workplaces with large knives, hooks and bandsaws, making tens of thousands of forceful repetitive motions on each and every shift to cut and break down the hogs.
USDA is ignoring three decades of studies indicating that faster line speeds and the forceful nature of the work in meatpacking plants are the root causes of a staggeringly high rate of work-related injuries and illnesses....
Since slaughterhouses seem to hire a fair number of illegal immigrants and the rest are usually from the poorer groups in society (i.e., those without much political power), I somehow doubt that the administration cares at all about that aspect.
As usual, the Trump administration simply ignored Americans' comments on the proposed rule:
Not only were there close to 80,000 comments from the public sent to USDA opposing this rule, but a survey found an overwhelming majority of Americans — in all parts of the country and across party lines — were opposed to this controversial rule.
In another story on this:
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html
Pat Basu, the chief veterinarian with the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service from 2016 to 2018, refused to sign off on the new pork system because of concerns about safety for both consumers and livestock. The USDA sent the proposed regulations to the Federal Register about a week after Basu left, and they were published less than a month later, according to records and interviews.
The agency will rely heavily on pathogen testing by plant owners, but those results will not have to be publicly disclosed. The hog plants also will no longer be required to test for E. coli, records show.
Joseph Ferguson is a former USDA hog inspector who retired in 2015 after working 23 years under the traditional inspection system as well as with a trial program that created the new proposed system. He said federal regulators lost control when plant workers supplanted them. Hog carcasses whizzed by him and the plant-paid inspectors at speeds so fast that fecal contamination -- an important indicator for E. coli and salmonella -- could not be detected.
“All the power gets handed over to the plant,” Ferguson said. “I saw the alleged inspections that were performed by plant workers; they weren’t inspections. They were supposed to meet or exceed USDA standards -- I never saw that happen.”
Beef is next. It seems the Obama administration already handed inspections of chickens over to the chicken slaughterhouse owners, though they didn't let them increase the speeds (they originally planned to, but decided not to allow it in the end). From what I understand, the unregulated use of chlorine baths and other disinfecting chemicals on chickens in our food also dates from that time. It seems that, before, chicken slaughterhouses had to apply to USDA for permission if they wanted to use such chemicals. I have no idea how often these requests were submitted and how often they were approved.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... ipe-waiver
The Trump administration is set to formally revoke California's tailpipe waiver under the Clean Air Act on Wednesday, according to a source with knowledge of the change.
The move is a major strike in the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and California over the state’s right to enact more stringent air pollution standards due to its poor air quality.
...The announcement indicates the White House is moving ahead with plans to split its auto emissions rule into two parts, a move seen as a way to speed up the process of finalizing the hotly debated deregulation. The first section of the rule formally revokes California’s preemption and waiver under the Clean Air Act, according to two sources with knowledge of the regulation. The rule could be finalized within a week.
Removal of the waiver would affect 13 additional states that also follow California’s clean air rules.
But hey, the GOP is all about states' rights, isn't it? Or, at least, it used to be, before Trump and his merry band of crooks took over the Republican party.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... g-on-birds
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it plans to reduce the use of pesticide testing on birds as part of Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s push to roll back animal testing at the agency.
The draft policy unveiled Tuesday was created in collaboration with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and aims to avoid “unnecessary resource use, data generation costs, and animal testing,” the proposal states.
...The rule would limit testing requirements for conventional pesticides used outdoors. The draft guidance is specifically aimed at reducing dietary testing on birds for pesticide registration — a method traditionally used to determine a pesticide’s toxicity on avian species.
EPA officials describe the proposed rule change as a move toward favoring testing that doesn’t hurt animals. “The draft policy represents another step toward the agency’s commitment to reduce animal testing while also ensuring that the agency receives enough information to support pesticide registration decisions that are protective of public health and the environment,” the EPA said in a press release.
...Scientists, however, have criticized the agency’s recent plans to roll back animal testing, arguing it opens the door to allowing more chemical and pesticide use in general amid a lack of adequate testing on live species...
The EPA last week announced a draft rule to completely eliminate animal testing requirements for chemicals by 2035...
The Trump administration has faced criticism for appearing to roll back species protections by allowing the use of harmful pesticides on crops. For example, the EPA in in July announced it would allow for the expanded use of sulfoxaflor, a pesticide it considers toxic to bees. The move came just days after the Department of Agriculture said it was suspending data collection on the insects’ decline.
This news may sound good to animal advocates but I suspect its real purpose is to minimize knowledge of the impacts of pesticides on wildlife and speed approvals for chemical companies. I don't like animal testing either, but you can't always see what a chemical does to the body with just cells or computer models. And these are pesticides, not cosmetics ingredients expected to be safe.
That it's being done by Trump's EPA is suspicious in itself. And now they can have PETA tell the public how wonderful it is. Pretty cunning. Basically, I'm doubtful the Trump administration would do something with PETA unless it's simply a way to use them. There are reasonable groups they could have consulted instead, like NRDC, which employs experts and scientists. That they picked the extremists (in my opinion, PETA are often ignorant idiots) is odd.
Edited to add a story about Barr's Justice Department helping Trump destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and tidy up a couple of hastily written sentences. Also, the Trump administration is doing its best to destroy the BLM and make sure they have little contact with Congress. They're working so hard to demolish the agency ASAP that they aren't even letting people know where they've been reassigned.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... failing-to
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) missed its deadline to tell nearly 300 Washington-based employees where they will be reassigned as the agency moves out West, with leaders telling staff that higher-ups failed to formally notify state offices of the move.
The Department of the Interior announced in July that it would be moving all but 61 of its Washington BLM staff to various existing offices out West...
Critics of the move have argued that it has been poorly planned and implemented. Many see it as a way to dismantle the agency that manages the nation’s public lands and their resources, decentralizing its operations by spreading policy staffers across different offices.