webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Rey, Mark timber wolf

Mark Rey was confirmed on Sept. 26 to be the Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment. In this position he oversees the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and is responsible for the management of 156 national forests, 19 national grasslands, and 15 land utilization projects on 191 million acres in 44 states. 

As Earthjustice found in its research (provided by the Clearinghouse for Environmental Advoacy Research and White House Watch) on Rey, he has extensive and disturbing ties to the timber industry, having been employed by various "big timber" trade associations and organizations for over 20 years.He opposes the National Forest Roadless Conservation Policy, and has a record of leading the charge against even the most basic forest conservation measures.

Earthjustice notes that as a staffer on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, Rey authored and defended a bill (Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) version of the National Forest Management Act) that did away with citizen oversight committees and other environmental safeguards.In 1995 he supported a "salvage rider" which exempted logging in our national forests from all environmental laws and compelled the logging of thousands of acres of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest that the Forest Service itself had declined to cut for environmental reasons. Perhaps most alarming, Rey was a featured speaker at two events put on with the help of the "Wise Use" organization, whose goal, as stated by a founding board member, is to "destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/312#rey

omb watch

 ==

wiki flagged

Mark Rey, former timber industry lobbyist, was the undersecretary for natural resources and agriculture in the federal government of the United States under the Bush Administration. He was sworn in as the undersecretary for natural resources and environment by the Agriculture Secretary,**Ann M. Veneman** on October 2, 2001. His duty was to monitor the U.S. Department of Agriculture’sForest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service.[1]

Contents

 [hide]

Education

Mark Rey is from Canton, Ohio. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife management, a Bachelor of Science degree in forestry, and also a Master of Science degree in natural resource policy and administration, all of his degrees come from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.[2]

Career

History in the timber industry

From 1976 through 1984 he held several positions for the American Paper Institute/National Forest Products Assoc.[3] For 1984 through 1989 he was Vice President for Forest Programs of the National Forest Products Association. For 1989 through 1992 he was Executive Director of the American Forest Resources Alliance. And in 1992 he was Vice President, Forest Resources for the American Forest and Paper Association.

Undersecretary

This article has been nominated to be checked for itsneutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (January 2009)

In 1994, Rey became Chief of Staff to Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho). From 1995 to 2001 he served as a staff member with the United States Senate Committee on Energy Resources. Mark was the committee’s lead staff person for work on the national forest policy and USFS Administration. In this position he was directly involved almost all legislation dealing with the United States Forest Service(USFS) with an important responsibility for several public lands bills. He had a major role in the proposed 1997 revisions to the National Forest Management Act, which would have made timber harvest levels mandatory while rendering environmental standards unenforceable.

Rey was the key author of the 1995 "Salvage Rider" which was attached to the "must pass"Congressional budget bill containing financial aid for victims of the domestic terrorism Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building. The "rider" suspended all environmental protections (such as the Endangered Species Act) allowing "salvage" harvests, which in many cases included logging of healthy green old-growth timber under the guise of protecting "forest health," in the Pacific Northwest.[4][5]

From 1992 to 1994, as the Vice President of Forest Resources for the American Forest and Paper Association, he pushed to eliminate public appeals to the USFS decision-making process because he felt it was being abused by environmental groups.*[citation needed]Throughout his career, he has opposed setting aside reserves for endangered species, while advocating logging quotas for old-growth forests, the imposition of fees for recreational use, and limiting public participation Forest Service planning. In February, 2008, Rey was threatened with jail by federal judge Donald Molloy of Missoula for**contempt of court**.*[citation needed]Rey had been ordered to have the Forest Service evaluate the environmental impacts of air-droppedammonium phosphatefire retardantsthat are known to harm fish. Rey initially refused to comply with the order, butagreed to cooperate only when faced with the prospect of prison time.

Post-Undersecretarial Career

BS

While continuing to work as a consulting lobbyist, Rey has wholeheartedly embraced a career as an educator atMichigan State Universitysince 2009. The field of his teaching focuses on advocacy in the area of natural resources policy.[6]Rey has made extensive use of connections obtained during his political career to enrich the lives of those around him, especially students involved in the Demmer Scholars Program.The Demmer Scholars program is a joint internship and class arrangement between Michigan State University and Mississippi State University facilitated by Rey. The program places students in coveted positions within federal natural resources agencies or non-governmental organizations (both nonprofit and for profit) operating in the natural resources policy arena in Washington, D.C. The Program brings participants into contact with notable figures (including Supreme Court Justices, White House officials, journalists, and eminent conservationists)through a series of excursions and topical discussions that would not be possible without his tireless work and willingness to draw upon connections established throughout his career.

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="-webkit-user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ [[1]](http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=bios_rey.xml) retrieved 25 Oct 2007
  2. :{Jump up:(style="-webkit-user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ [2] retrieved 25 Oct 2007
  3. :{Jump up:(style="-webkit-user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ [3] retrieved 1 Nov 2007
  4. :{Jump up:(style="-webkit-user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ High Country News, September 6, 1996 http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=2748
  5. :{Jump up:(style="-webkit-user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ http://www.nativeforest.org/campaigns/public_lands/rey_5_30_02.htm
  6. :{Jump up:(style="-webkit-user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Mark Rey". msu.edu. Retrieved 22 July 2015.

Categories: 

The American Forest Resource Alliance is a front group and lobbying arm of the timber and logging industry.

Contents

 [hide]

Background

American Forest Resource Alliance is a coalition of 350 timber corporations formed by the National Forest Products Association to oppose "Option 9" - a plan to designate habitat in the Pacific Northwest for the endangered northern spotted owl.[1]

Mark Rey

Mark Rey, undersecretary for natural resources and environment at the Department of Agriculture under the Bush administration, was the Executive Director of the organization from 1989 to 1992[1]. In an Environment News Service article, Matthew Koehler of the Native Forest Network in Missoula is quoted as saying, "...While the Bush Administration carefully greenwashes its anti-environmental image, Mark Rey and his friends in the logging, mining, oil and gas and motorized recreation industry are poised to exploit our national forests."[2] While at AFRA, Rey "publicly promoted the idea that the Endangered Species Act unfairly restricts business and authored a 1991 "secret" proposal circulated to the first Bush Administration calling for logging quotas in these ancient forests."[1]

External links

References

  1. ↑ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:1.0 1.1 1.2 "Meet Mark Rey: The Fox in the Hen House," Brock Evans, Native Forest Network, 2003.
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ "Activists Attack Industry Friendly Forest Policies," Environment News Service, June 6, 2002.

Category: 

==

srcwtch

As the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment,Mark E. Reyoversees the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. In this position he is responsible for the management of 156 national forests, 19 national grasslands, and 15 land utilization projects on 191 million acres in 44 states. Sworn in by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman on October 2, 2001, he is another in the long line of Bush appointees with close ties to industry. While this is nothing new to politics,the particular vehemence with which Bush's appointees have gone after basic environmental and consumer protections is unprecedented. Mark Rey is particularly noteworthy.

Born in Canton, Ohio, Rey has B.S. degrees in wildlife management and forestry and an M.S. in natural resources policy and administration, all from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.[1]

One of the nation's foremost timber lobbyists, Mark Rey spent almost twenty years (1976-1994) working for timber industry organizations including the National Forest Products Association, the American Paper Institute, and the American Forest Resources Alliance. He was Vice President of the American Forest and Paper Association, a leading advocate of logging in national forests, from 1992-1994.[2]

Rey was directly involved in virtually all of the forestry and conservation legislation considered by Congress from 1995 to 2001. He was the lead staff member to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. The infamous 1995 "Salvage Rider" that is attributed to him, suspended environmental laws and allowed logging of old growth in the Pacific Northwest. One source noted that Rey claimed he did not author the rider, known as the "Logging Without Laws Rider" by its non-industry detractors, but went on to note that it "has his fingerprints all over it."[3]

Rey also authored Senator Larry Craig's (R-ID) version of the National Forest Management Act, lifting the language of the bill almost verbatim from his American Forest and Paper Association successor's recommendations to the House resource committee. The bill would have eliminated citizen oversight and made timber harvest levels mandatory and enforceable, while making environmental standards unenforceable "policies."[4]He was also afeatured speaker at the 1996 and 1998 "Fly In for Freedom," an annual event held by Alliance for America, the vehemently anti-environmental Wise Use Movement organization.

Known as an extremely astute and articulate man, Rey has applied his talents to instituting drastic alterations of environmental protections. He is particularly adept at using a variety of techniques to achieve his objectives. An environmentalist commenting on his work as Chief of Staff for Senator Craig quipped,"Hell, you have to read one of Mark's bill drafts about five times before you can figure out how you're getting screwed."[5]

A common tactic employed by Rey is to arrange the timing of his anti-environmental policy announcements to minimize scrutiny. Rey waited until late on December 23, 2003 to announce the removal of roadless protections to allow logging in the Tongass National Forest. [6] Other stealth tactics Rey has utilized to avoid public scrutiny and implement his pro-industry agenda include stalling on implementation of regulations, neglecting to enforce standards, misappropriating funds to benefit the timber industry, failing to challenge court actions against environmental laws and manipulating regulations. In "Dirty Secrets" Osha Gray Davidson describes Rey's enforcement of the roadless regulations:

Diversion of Forest Service funds to benefit the timber industry is evidenced by the use of brush reduction funds for commercial timber sales:

He has also used National Fire Plan restoration funds to conduct post-fire salvage logging, thinning and other commercial timber activities.[9]

With the aid of the Justice Department, timber industry lawsuits are not challenged or are settled out of court at the benefit of industry. This has resulted in agreements to abolish key requirements of the highly successful Northwest Forest Plan (a compromise to end the war between the logging industry and environmentalists) such as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and to abandon critical habitat designations for endangered species like the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and 19 species of threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead, including Puget Sound chinook, Hood Canal summer chum, and Lake Ozette sockeye. [10]

Rey has been a key force behind the "Healthy Forests" initiative that accelerated logging, particularly of bigger trees, in wildfire-prone areas. According to the Forest Service's own research, the thinning of large trees will increase, rather than reduce, fire hazard.**[**11]

Rey was also the primary force behind the decision to grant exemptions to the ban on logging in roadless areas of national forests. The exemptions would allow loggers to cut trees in previously protected areas, particularly in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, and the Giant Sequoia National Monument.[12] The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Rule was considered by many to be the most important conservation initiative of the 20th century and had overwhelming public support. But, claiming in a February 2, 2004 letter to the Star Tribune that the "Bush administration is doing its part to safeguard Tongass forest," Rey defended removal of the roadless protection rule from the Tongass. He called it a "responsible solution that protects the environment" and ignored ramifications of the resultant timber harvesting by claiming "the Tongass is already protected and the only lands available for timber harvest represent just 4 percent of the total land base. 

Old-growth reserves, stream buffers, beach fringe buffers, roadless areas and other protections remain."[13] He failed to mention the 50 large-scale timber sales in pristine areas of the forest. The press release also omitted this important detail, claiming that the reason was to resolve a legal challenge by the state of Alaska and provide necessary access to the area's residents. [14] Rey also ignored the Final Environmental Impact preferred solution for the Tongass which "prohibit[ed] road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest except for stewardship purposes in all inventoried roadless areas" and would have extended roadless protection and provided financial assistance to those affected. [15]

According the Natural Resources Defense Council, "the resulting logging and roadbuilding [will] destroy wildlife habitat, silt up world-class salmon streams, and degrade forever the pristine character of America's last great temperate rainforests."[16]

Unless it supports his pre-determined agenda, Rey dismisses public opinion, no matter how overwhelming, and chafes at traditional safeguards such as Environmental Impact Statements, claiming they "[waste] the time of resource managers and taxpayer dollars." [17] At his confirmation hearing Rey stated "counting heads should not be the way we manage National Forests" and throughout noted how laws such as "the NFMA [National Forest Management Act], the ESA [Endangered Species Act], and NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act], need to be 're-examined,' 'reviewed' and 're-opened.' These laws, according to Rey, were 'holding up projects on the ground,' and were simply 'outdated.'"[18]

Rey has also pushed for getting rid of the USFS appeals process, claiming it is being abused by "high-paid special interest litigators or by college pranksters."[19]As a result, important policy changes are made without public scrutiny and without attention to public input. Broad public opposition to changes such as increased logging and roadbuilding in the Tongass and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommendations such as those against roadbuilding are ignored.[20]

A satirical website by Public Campaign aptly depicts the Department of Agriculture's stewardship of the environment under Mark Rey: America's national forests are auctioned off eBay-style by Rey and the Bush administration, and potential buyers are enticed with the claim "Remember…once the big trees are gone, they're gone forever, so buy now. And don't forget to say Mark Rey, former timber lobbyist, sent you."[21]

External links

==

http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/successes.php

Mark E. Rey joined The Livingston Group after eight years as the nation’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Mr. Rey brings expertise from both Capitol Hill and the private sector, holding the position as senior staff at the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. While teaming with The Livingston Group, Mr. Rey also continues teaching undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University as an Executive in Residence.

As USDA Under Secretary, Mr. Rey oversaw the programs for the U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. The agencies within this mission area managed the 192 million acre National Forest System as well as conservation projects on 210 million acres of farm and ranch lands, they employed nearly 45,000 full-time personnel and administered a budget of nearly eight billion dollars Serving on Capitol Hill for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Rey was responsible for drafting legislation, organizing over 100 legislative and oversight hearings, coordinating media relations, counseling committee members and other Senate and House members and staff, along with working with executive branch officials.

In the private sector, Mr. Rey held the position of Vice President for the American Forest and Paper Association and the Executive Director of the American Forest Resource Alliance. Responsibilities included program development, legislative and legal advocacy, membership growth, supervising the start-up of a grass roots organization representing forest product industry and non-industrial forest landowners.

Mr. Rey earned several degrees from the University of Michigan, including a Masters of Science in Natural Resources and Administration; Bachelor of Science in Forestry; and Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Management.

Significant Associations, Activities and Accomplishments

Education

2009 HCN

"The Darth Vader of forest policy"

Jodi Peterson April 22, 2009 Web Exclusive

If you paid any attention at all to national forest issues during Bush's tenure, you heard the name "Mark Rey" a lot. Appointed Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, Rey oversaw the Forest Service for eight years. From the start, environmental groups were wary of Rey's logging-friendly record, while his supporters praised Rey's expertise in forestry and his emphasis on local involvement.

Over the years, HCN covered Rey's often-controversial actions extensively: helping create the "Healthy Forests" plans; "streamlining" the forest planning process; attempting to sell off thousands of acres of public lands; shutting down  a Forest Service team that analyzed public comments; planning the closure of thousands of national forest campgrounds and sites.

Now, three months out of office, Rey spoke to Martin Nie (associate professor of natural resource policy at the University of Montana)  about his years as undersecretary. Nie asked some incisive and fairly pointed questions; Rey answered in his usual style, neatly evading some, and replying to others with exhaustively detailed, bordering-on-pedantic responses. The 38-page transcript is posted on Headwaters News:

On his bid to undo the Clinton roadless rule and replace it with a state-by-state process:

In the case of trying to do a nationwide rule, you know you can get all the political closure you want to finally end the debate. You can have the president of the United States stand on the side of a ridge in southern Virginia and announce the outcome, but as the courts have told us, it’s hard to do justice to all the technical detail that is required to make the decision sound from the standpoint of a reviewing judge.

On the other hand, if you deal with this on a forest-by-forest basis, you can—by virtue of the fact that you have a lot less data to deal with—deal with it more intelligently.

On his attempt to "clarify" federal road easements that would have made it easier for Plum Creek Timber to develop millions of acres of Montana inholdings:

The last thing we need is the Forest Service slopping over and confusing and otherwise confounding regulatory decisions that (the states are) already poised to make.

On whether there was ever an issue that he advanced as Undersecretary despite his personal opposition to that issue:

Nope. I always prided myself in being able to mold the policy to that which I supported so at the end of the day I was either oblivious to the fact that I opposed it or clever enough to change it.

On who his most formidable adversary was:

Well, if you try to understand the interest that you’re working with, what motivates them, what are the external variables that they’re reacting to, what are their objectives, their priorities, they cease to become adversaries.It’s really hard to call somebody you’ve gotten to understand that well your adversary. And if they cease to become adversaries, they cease to become very formidable.So I’d be hard pressed to call anybody that I’ve interacted with at any length, an adversary.

==

punked the conv?

As the Australia Parliament currently debates legislation to fight illegal logging, it’s worth considering the impact of the American and European laws on which the Australian effort is modelled. We may be in a unique position to do so: our long careers in the timber industry led both of us to be strong initiators and advocates of the US Lacey Act, which prohibits the import and trade of illegal wood and wood products.

Our philosophy, like most of the forest products industry, has been to conduct business and manage forests in a way that ensures the timber resources we rely upon will remain healthy and available for future generations.

However, these efforts are severely undermined by illegal loggers, who pillage national parks and protected areas around the world. Some employ slave and child labour, aid drug trafficking, fund terrorism, and spur violent conflict in communities. Illegal logging has devastated forests and wildlife and is a significant driver of the 30 million acres of tropical forest cleared every year.

Many of Australia’s closest neighbours, including Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Indonesia, are struggling with some of the highest levels of illegal logging in the world. A recent example reported by the Environmental Investigation Agency reveals that the palm oil company PT Suryamas Cipta Perkasa illegally cleared a peat forest in central Borneo that contained substantial stands of the valuable hardwood species ramin, illegal to cut in Indonesia. This clearing destroyed the habitat for a population of 600 endangered Bornean orangutans, which - adding insult to injury - the company also paid people to hunt and kill. The livelihoods of the local residents were destroyed along with the forest. One-third of the community moved away.

Illegal logging destroys the habitat of threatened species and local people. CIFOR

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has prioritised halting illegal deforestation and has called upon importing countries to help by stating,

If you want to do good, let’s work together to sort out the timber industry. Other countries should stop fencing illegally felled timber.

While illegal logging is a lucrative business for organised criminal operations, it robs developing countries of an estimated $10 billion annually. Logging gangs evade paying fees for use of natural resources, smuggle timber out of forest nations, and do the high-value, job creating work of processing thousands of miles from the communities that depend on the forests for their livelihood. Illegal logging also undercuts companies who play by the rules, making it extremely difficult to compete in the global marketplace and resulting in job losses.

That’s why, in 2008, we worked with a broad coalition to advance the world’s first prohibition on the import and trade of illegal wood and wood products. Just as in Australia, environmental groups and the timber industry are often at each other’s throats. But when it comes to illegal logging, we’ve found common ground. Supporters of the Lacey Act include everyone from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to Fortune 500 companies like International Paper and American’s largest landowner, Plum Creek, as well as smaller lumber businesses.

The logging industry and environmentalists are often at each other’s throats: this is something they can work together on. Still Wild Still Threatened

Extraordinarily, support for this law has, for the most part, crossed the partisan divide in America at one of the most politically polarised times in our history. The law emerged from a Bush administration initiative, but was supported as enthusiastically by left wing Democrats as conservative Republicans. Indeed, when the Lacey Act recently came under attack from a politically well-connected importer that was accused of violating it, the law’s opponents couldn’t muster the votes to undermine it.

Coming together to achieve this goal has cut global illegal logging by 22% - good news for orangutans, tigers, and communities that depend on forests. And it’s helping to protect the lungs of our planet which are increasingly important as we all face the challenges of climate change.

It’s also been good for the economy. In 2006, the US ran a $20.3 billion deficit with China in forest products; in 2010, the US ran a $600 million surplus. This dramatic reversal is due in large part to the 2008 Lacey Act forest provisions, which spurred many Chinese manufacturers to ask for low risk, legal and sustainable hardwoods. Our domestic resource fit that bill; so would Australia’s.

One country alone cannot fully stop illegal logging, which is driven by a complex global market. With the US Lacey Act, the EU Timber Regulation, and hopefully the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill joining forces in blocking illegal wood imports, we can continue to make significant progress in curbing global forest crime.

This article was co-authored by Jameson S. French, the President and CEO of Northland Forest Products, Inc, based in New Hampshire, USA.

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

Adjunct Faculty

Education:

M.S. Natural Resources Policy and Administration, University of Michigan

B.S.F. Forestry, University of Michigan

B.S. Wildlife Management, University of Michigan

Background:

Mark Rey teaches  Advocacy in the Natural Resources Arena (ANR 491), which reviews the types of advocacy groups operating in the natural resources arena, tools and techniques used in environmental advocacy, tactics commonly used in advocacy campaigns and ethical questions that often arise during advocacy work. He also oversees the Demmer Scholars internship program run in conjunction with a natural resource policy class. The internships are with  federal natural resources agency or non-governmental organization (both nonprofit and for profit) operating in the natural resources policy arena in Washington, D.C.  Rey is the former under-secretary for natural resources and environment.  In that position, he oversaw the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service.  Rey served as a staff member with the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. He was the lead staff person for the committee's work on national forest policy and Forest Service administration.

Affiliated with Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability

omg

The William A. Demmer Scholars Program encompasses a senior-level class on advocacy in natural resources and a 13-week internship in Washington, D.C. The Demmer Scholars Program is led by Mark Rey, Executive in Residence in the MSU Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Designed to articulate the history, policies and significant impacts that the Boone and Crockett Club has had on conservation in North America, the program provides opportunities for MSU undergraduate and graduate students to become paid interns at federal and non-governmental organizations focused on natural resources.

Advocacy in the Natural Resources Arena (ANR 491) reviews the types of advocacy groups operating in the natural resources arena, tools and techniques used in environmental advocacy, tactics commonly used in advocacy campaigns, and ethical questions that often arise during advocacy work.

Past guest have included:

David Anderson, former assistant director, Office of Management and Budget

Felicity Barringer, senior environmental correspondent, The New York Times

Sarah Bittleman, deputy assistant secretary of the Interior for Congressional Affairs

Glen Caroline, director of grassroots programs for theNational Rifle Association

Larry Craig, former U.S. Senator from Idaho

Frank Gladics, professional staff member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Bill Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society

Mark Pawlicki, director of government affairs for Sierra Pacific

Steve Quarles,former deputy undersecretary of the Interior

Lynn Scarlett, former deputy secretary of the Interior

Ed Shafer, former secretary of Agriculture

Dave Tenny, president of the National Association of Forest Owners

Suzanne Thomson, director of mail programs, Warfield & Walsh

Chris Wood, chief operating officer, Trout Unlimited

Mark Rey, Executive in Residence in MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

As an integral part of the Demmer Scholars Program, students in ANR 491 are placed in 13-week, full-time internships with natural resources agencies or nongovernmental organizations working in the natural resources policy arena in Washington, D.C. Through these internships, students get real world experience, see the principles taught in the classroom applied in practice, and make valuable career contacts for future educational and employment opportunities.

==

==

may 2012

ASHINGTON — A Congressional subcommittee heard arguments yesterday for and against changes to the Lacey Act by wood industry leaders, government agency officials and musicians.

The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs held a legislative hearing May 8 on two bills that would amend the 2008 Lacey Act: H.R. 3210, the “Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act” (RELIEF Act), and H.R. 4171, the “Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures Act of 2012” (FOCUS Act).

In 2008, Congress expanded the Lacey Act to include all plants and plant products. In addition, it expanded the realm of the Act to include all foreign regulations relating to plant and forestry issues.

Since then, a number of congressmen and others have come out in support of amending the Lacey Act. “The rushed changes in 2008 made for imperfect outcomes that need to be addressed,” Subcommittee Chairman John Fleming (R-LA) said in his opening remarks. “These amendments must be addressed before another person is unfairly prosecuted. This hearing is a good first step in finding ways to improve the law, while keeping its original intent of animal and plant protection intact,” he added in a separate statement.

Calling the Lacey Act “a frightening example of overcriminalization,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), sponsor of the FOCUS Act, told the subcommittee the bill aims to “alter the Lacey Act by removing all references to ‘foreign law.’” Under his proposal, the FOCUS Act would also remove criminal penalties and instead institute a civil penalty system in which violations with a market value of less than $350 would face a maximum penalty of $10,000, with more severe violations subject to penalties up $200,000.

Stating, “The FOCUS Act makes a strong ideological statement but does nothing to protect musicians or other owners of pre-2008 products,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) promoted the benefits of the bipartisan RELIEF Act to the subcommittee. According to Cooper, the bill would re-establish the “innocent owner” defense, include a grandfather clause for items purchased prior to May 22, 2008 and “streamline the importation of legal goods.”

Voicing his group's support for Lacey Act reform, Barry Rutenberg, chairman of the board of the National Association of Home Builders, stated, “By deeming Lacey-violative wood and plant products ‘contraband,” innocent companies are left without legal standing to challenge a government taking in court. Coupled with requirements that the U.S. government enforce an almost limitless set of foreign laws, builders, and ultimately consumers, are left at great risk.”

Also speaking out on Tuesday in support of Lacey Act reform, specifically the RELIEF Act was musician Jeffrey Baxter, former guitarist for Steely Dan, Doobie Brothers and others. “I am not here to advocate overturning, eviscerating or weakening the Lacey Act. Rather, I think it could be made more effective and focused, while ensuring that law-abiding American musicians and American businesses can continue to create music and create jobs without fear of accidentally violating Lacey….The Lacey Act is a good piece of legislation, but let’s work to make it better.”

But opposing what they claim are attempts to “weaken the law” a group of musicians, forest products executives, current and former government officials spoke out against proposed changes in the FOCUS and RELIEF Acts, and in favor of retaining the Lacey Act in its current form.

Adam Gardner, frontman for the music group Guster and founder and co-director of the non-profit organization Reverb, noted, “The RELIEF Act’s provisions would remove almost all the key deterrents to illegal logging; those things that are really bringing about change on the ground and in the trade. They are so far reaching that they would completely undermine the law’s effectiveness in preventing deforestation as well as threaten U.S jobs by allowing cheap illegal imports to undercut local products.”

And, Gardner added, “H.R. 3210 only provides ‘relief’ to illegal loggers while leaving musicians and other consumers of wood products with burdensome doubt about the legality and sustainability of the wood products we use. By contrast, the Lacey Act provides comforting assurance to conscientious consumers like myself that the wood I am buying in my instruments or elsewhere is legally sound.”

“The Lacey Act is the perfect illustration of the U.S. leading by example, and having a very real and positive impact on the strength of local environmental protection laws in developing countries,”testified Rep.Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)at the hearing. “This is why the U.S. timber industry supports this law, and why major international conglomerates are actively opposing these laws; we are in a race to strengthen forest governance against those who thrive in a lawless setting.

“The RELIEF Act and the FOCUS Act would undermine this success,” Blumenauer added.

Added:{Mark Rey,:(style="background-color:#ffcc66ff"):}::{former Undersecretary of Agriculture for National Resources and the Environment and representing Climate Advisors:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:, “[An] important objective underlying the Lacey Act amendments was to level the playing field for legitimate American producers of forest products. We believe that the Lacey Act is meeting that objective, and that t he elimination of the violation of foreign laws as a basis for prosecution will threaten the enormous benefits of the Lacey Act.”

Donna Harman, president and CEO of the American Forest and Paper Assn., which represents wood products manufacturers, forest landowners, pulp, paper and packaging, noted that since the 2008 amendment to Lacey, the U.S. hardwood industry has seen a “pickup in demand” from domestic and foreign buyers. However, she said, further work needs to be done to the declaration requirements before it can be fully implemented and that adequate federal funding must be in place to ensure education and implementation of the act.

In addition, Harman stated, “AF&PA believes that the Lacey Act Amendments should not apply to plants and plant products manufactured or imported prior to the enactment of the amendments. We agree that it is unreasonable to expect importers to obtain complete supply chain information retroactive to pre-May 2008.”

Laurie Everill, compliance manager for IKEA North America and a member of the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Assn., also noted the need for Congress to “clarify the Lacey Act amendments to give businesses better guidance on which foreign laws and regulations may give rise to a violation, by specifying that applicable foreign laws and regulations be directed to the preservation or conservation of trees and plants….This change would also improve enforcement and compliance by directing efforts in ways that truly advance the policy objectives of the law.”

While recognizing the need for some change to the current Lacey Act, she stated, “The current bills in the House — Tennessee Congressman Cooper’s RELIEF Act and Georgia Congressman Broun’s FOCUS Act — have raised awareness of members of Congress and the public to the practical challenges related to the Lacey Act Amendments. However, neither of these bills would adequately address these challenges, and in order to be credible, any changes needs to be supported by the environmental community.”

Read additional testimony given before the subcommittee:

Statement from Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)

Statement from Reed Rubinstein, partner at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform

Eileen Sobeck, deputy assistant director for Fish and Wildlife Parks, Dept. of Interior

Kevin Shea, associate adminstrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

Watch a video from the hearing by WZTV's John Dunn.

==

http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004118835.html

 Geof Koss, CQ Staff

The blogosphere was on fire this spring with rumors of a government plot to spoil the summer’s music festivals. Fox News in mid-May raised the possibility that the government could confiscate guitars from musicians returning from gigs in other countries under a law that bans commerce in illegally harvested timber. Soon The Washington Examiner reported that lawmakers were “scrambling to save the summer concert season from federal agents poised to seize the instruments of rock and country stars.”

The source of these scary stories was, ironically, a news release by Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee intended to calm such concerns, which were occasioned in part by a government raid on several Gibson Guitar facilities in his home state. The agents were looking for exotic wood from India that might have been imported illegally. After meeting in May with environmentalists and representatives of the music and imported-wood industries, Alexander, a Republican, issued a statement insisting that a law enacted four years ago to address illicit logging was never intended to allow the confiscation of wood instruments made before 2008.

“I don’t want the musicians from Nashville who are flying to Canada to perform this summer to worry about the government seizing their guitars,” said Alexander, an original cosponsor of the 2008 legislation. He noted that the Justice Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service had both indicated they had no plans to take anybody’s guitars, and he assured musicians he would introduce legislation to protect them if he didn’t get a clear ruling from enforcement officials.

The episode illustrates the challenge facing supporters of the 2008 revisions to the Lacey Act, a century-old anti-poaching law now expanded to outlaw the trade in trees and other plants protected by state, federal, tribal or foreign laws. Backers worry that trying to fix relatively minor flaws through more legislation — to protect guitars, for instance — might give business groups and opponents of government regulation an opening to challenge more of the Lacey Act, including its recognition of foreign laws as the basis for determining violations of U.S. statutes.

Trouble Ahead

Already, two other Senate Republicans, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, have called for hearings with an eye to a broad overhaul of the Lacey Act. Others have introduced bills to exempt some industries from the law or repeal the statute’s recognition of foreign laws.

That’s why Alexander and another 2008 sponsor, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, are approaching the repair job cautiously. “It’s not uncommon for a good law after two or three years to have some unintended consequences, and this one did,” says Alexander. “We’re willing to make the changes.”

They plan to start by pressing for administrative steps, rather than new legislation, to clarify legal issues that worry the music industry. “Here you have a law that all sides, in terms of the principals, will tell you has done a lot of good,” Wyden says. “So you want to be careful with respect to how you proceed.”

There was virtually no opposition during negotiations to amend the Lacey Act in the first place, says Mark Rey, a top Interior Department official in the George W. Bush administration who now teaches natural-resource policy at Michigan State University.

“We didn’t hear a lot of concerns at that point,” says Rey. Among the supporters was the American hardwood industry, which considers the law protection against cheaper, illegally logged foreign products.

Illegal logging costs governments some $5 billion annually in lost royalties and $10 billion to $15 billion in lost revenue, the World Bank says. By some estimates, illegally logged timber accounts for as much as 30 percent of all hardwood lumber and plywood sold worldwide. U.S. demand for timber from tropical countries drives much of the world’s illegal logging — roughly 80 percent of Peruvian mahogany is illegally harvested, according to a 2006 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The revised Lacey Act aims to snuff out demand for contraband wood products by prohibiting the trade and requiring that importers declare the country of origin and species name of all plants used in their products.

Matter of Enforcement

Implementing the changes ultimately proved more challenging than foreseen, prompting the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to delay enforcement of some provisions. Overall, the changes in the law escaped much notice.

That is until last August, when federal agents served four search warrants on facilities owned by Gibson Guitars, whose instruments have been popularized by the likes of Eric Clapton, B.B. King and Chuck Berry. Items seized in the raid included computers, records and thousands of guitar fingerboards. Agents were seeking ebony and rosewood allegedly exported from India in violation of Indian law.

Gibson Chairman and Chief Executive Henry Juszkiewicz complained last year that the dispute did not involve illegal harvesting, but, rather, alleged violation of an Indian export restriction “designed to keep wood finishing work in India.” While the company has not faced any charges, the event fueled an intense debate about the Lacey Act.

“It’s taken on a life of its own,” says Lisa Handy, a senior policy adviser for the Environmental Investigation Agency, an advocacy group that supports the law.

Among the questions was whether individuals who owned products containing illegally imported wood purchased before 2008 would face criminal liability or forfeiture.

Leading the rapid legislative response was Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat who introduced a bill to grandfather in products purchased before the law’s enactment.

Opponents of Cooper’s bill say the issue is a red herring, noting that federal officials have said they have no intention of seizing musical instruments. Among the musicians who have signed a petition in support of the Lacey Act, in fact, are Mick Jagger, Sting and Willie Nelson. One of Gibson’s leading competitors, the Martin Guitar Co. — whose guitars have been used by Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley and Woody Guthrie — has embraced a “responsible timber purchasing policy” and expressed its commitment to the Lacey Act requirements.

Alexander says he is sympathetic to the concerns of musicians, but hopes a Justice Department statement clarifiying the enforcement policy will preclude the need to address it with legislation.

More Exemptions

What worries Lacey Act supporters more is language in Cooper’s bill that would exempt some wood products from the import declaration requirements. That would give a free pass to importers of pulp, paper and paperboard, as well as to products made from them. That is “by far the largest segment of imports covered” by the 2008 amendments, according to a letter that forest products companies sent to House members in June. The wood industry and environmentalists also oppose provisions that would reduce monetary penalties and allow companies to avoid forfeiting wood products deemed illegal.

Despite the opposition, the House Natural Resources Committee approved Cooper’s bill on June 7. Republican leaders have indicated the bill will come to the floor in July.

A competing legislative effort would go even further. Conservatives in the House and Senate introduced legislation to delete all references in the Lacey Act to foreign laws, essentially limiting its reach to the United States, while also removing criminal penalties from the law.

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, the chief Senate sponsor, said the bill would address “broad overcriminalization,” citing the cases of four defendants who were imprisoned for importing more than 400,000 tons of lobster tails valued at more than $4 million in violation of Honduran seafood packaging regulations. Officials said the shipment that arrived in an Alabama port in 1999 included undersized, unprocessed and uninspected lobster tails. A federal appeals court upheld their convictions under the Lacey Act, ruling that foreign regulations and other legally binding requirements — not just statutes —have the force of law.

Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says the case illustrates a “defect” in the law: the risk of conviction and imprisonment for making a mistake under foreign law. He calls it “sheer lunacy” to assume an average citizen has any awareness of the multitude of foreign laws recognized under the Lacey Act.

Lacey Act supporters say the defendants in the lobster case were hardly naive, average citizens — one owned a fleet of boats that harvested the shellfish. Supporters of the law say Paul’s legislation would eviscerate the law’s protections at home and abroad. They dispute the notion that the law has resulted in widespread prosecution and point out that its recognition of foreign law has been in statute for many decades.

Rey, the former Bush administration official, says philosophical objections may be based “on a new realization” that the 2008 amendments for the first time applied long-standing provisions of the law to new segments of the public. Lacey Act supporters say concerns about the 2008 amendments can be addressed without legal changes, noting that the law allows the executive branch broad implementation authority.

Meanwhile, Inhofe and Sessions are pressing for a hearing on the law. Sessions, who, as a U.S. attorney, prosecuted Lacey Act cases, concedes the law has been effective in protecting wildlife, but says he has long had concerns about its reach. “As a matter of constitutional law and principle, some of the provisions in there ought to be corrected, I think,” he says.

==