DOCSLIB.ORG

The US Environmental Protection Agency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The US Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A Historical Perspective on Its Role in Environmental Protection Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München vorgelegt von Xin Liu München 2010 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Michael Hochgeschwender Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Christof Mauch Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 07.07.2010 Liu iii Table of Contents Lists of Tables…………………………………..………………………………………………….vi Lists of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………vii Lists of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………...viii 1. Introduction…………………………………………………….………………………....1 1.1. Environmental Protection: Preconditions, Push-Factor and Value Change……......…1 1.2. Development of Federal Environmental Protection from the Nixon to the Clinton Administration………………………………………………………………………...5 1.3. Description of this Study……………………………………………………………...8 1.3.1. Why does this Study focus on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? ….8 1.3.2. Why does this Study focus on the Era from 1970 to 2000? …………………...9 1.3.3. Subject, Method and Procedures……………………………………………...11 2. The EPA Context: Origins, Principles and Legacies………………………………….20 2.1. The Context of the EPA’s Organization……………………………………………..20 2.1.1. The EPA’s Goals, Responsibilities and Functions……………………………22 2.1.2. Organizational Structure……………………………………………………....23 2.1.3. Environmental Regulation Process……………………………………………32 2.2. Political Involvement in the EPA’s Decision-making and Development…………...34 2.2.1. The President, his Administration, and the EPA……………………………...34 2.2.2. Congress and the EPA………………………………………………………...38 2.2.3. Courts………………………………………………………………………….41 2.2.4. Interest Groups………………………………………………………………...47 3. The Historical Context: Shaping the EPA, and its Changing Roles………………….61 3.1. The EPA under the Nixon-Ford Administration…..………………………………... 62 Liu iv 3.1.1. Environmental Understanding from President Nixon………………………...62 3.1.2. Environmental Understanding from Administrator Ruckelshaus and Administrator Train…………………………………………………………....65 3.1.3. Presidential Election of 1972………………………………………………….67 3.1.4. The EPA under Administrator William Ruckelshaus…………………………68 3.1.5. Energy Crisis and the Fading of Environmental Protection………………......75 3.1.6. The EPA under Administrator Russell Train………………………………….77 3.1.7. “Quality of Life” Review……………………………………………………...84 3.1.8. Congress, Courts and the EPA………………………………………………...86 3.1.9. Interests Groups and the EPA…………………………………………………90 3.2. The EPA under the Carter Administration…………………………………………...95 3.2.1. Strengthening Environmental Enforcement with Civil Litigation…………….97 3.2.2. The EPA pursuing Superfund Legislation on Hazardous Waste……………...98 3.2.3. Establishing the Bubble Policy……………………………………………….101 3.2.4. Regulatory Reform from the Carter Administration…………………………102 3.2.5. Interest Groups and Court……………………………………………………107 3.3. The EPA under the Reagan Administration………………………………………...110 3.3.1. Environmental Stand from President Reagan………………………………..112 3.3.2. Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford……………………………………….113 3.3.3. The Change from William Ruckelshaus……………………………………..114 3.3.4. Administrator Lee M. Thomas………………………………………………114 3.3.5. The EPA under President Reagan and his administrators…………………...115 3.3.5.1. The EPA under Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford……………..116 3.3.5.2. The EPA under Administrator William Ruckelshaus……………….119 3.3.5.3. The EPA under Administrator Lee Thomas…………………………123 Liu v 3.3.6. Federal Regulatory Reform from the “Quality of Life” Reviews to Reagan’s Regulatory Relief……………………………………………………………..129 3.3.7. Congress, Court and the EPA………………………………………………..138 3.3.8. Interests Groups and the EPA………………………………………………..146 3.4. The EPA under the George H. W. Bush Administration…………………………...153 3.5. The EPA under the Clinton Administration………………………….......................166 3.5.1. President Clinton and Vice-President Gore…………………………..............167 3.5.2. Administrator Carol Browner………………...………....................................168 3.5.3. The Optimistic Beginning…………………………........................................169 3.5.4. Hard Reality in Clinton’s First Two Years……………...…………...............170 3.5.5. Clinton’s Achievement on Environmental Protection……………………….172 3.5.6. EPA Initiatives under Administrator Browner…..……………………..........175 3.5.7. Congress, Court and the EPA……………..…………....................................192 3.5.8. Interest Groups and the EPA………...………………....................................198 4. Case Study: Automobile Emissions………………………….......................................204 4.1. What are Automobile Emissions?…………………………......................................204 4.2. The EPA Role in Controlling Automobile Emissions…………………………........205 5. Conclusion…………………………................................................................................215 5.1. Strategies, Methods and Problems in the EPA’s Roles……………………………..215 5.1.1. Strategies and Economic Incentives forming the EPA’s Roles from the Nixon to the Clinton Administration…...……………………....................................219 5.1.2. Problems………………...………....................................................................226 5.2. The EPA and Science……………...…………..........................................................229 Workcited………………………….................................................................................233 Liu vi Lists of Tables Table 1: Patterns of Party Control of Congress and the Presidency, 1972-2000……………12 Table 2: Media and Functional Offices……………………………………………………...32 Table 3: Principal Congressional Oversight Committee and Subcommittees (1993)……….40 Table 4: Membership Trends of Selected National Environmental Organizations………….52 Table 5: Registrants for Environmental Issues by Organizational Type…………………….58 Table 6: Client for Environmental Issues by Organizational Type………………………….58 Table 7: The Regulation Reform Act………………………………………………………104 Table 8: Regulatory Reform Bills, 1979-1980……………………………………………..105 Table 9: History of Regulatory Analysis…………………………………………………...131 Table 10: The EPA’ Major Rules…………………………………………………………..134 Table 11: The EPA’s Benefit-cost Analyses: 1981-86……………………………………..135 Table 12: Selected Cumulative Environmental Benefits…………………………………...186 Table 13: The EPA’s Budget and Workforce, 1970-2003………………………………….217 Table 14: EPA Research and Development Budget Appropriations Account Compared with EPA Budget Authority, FY 1976-1996…………………………………….230 Liu vii Lists of Figures Figure 1: The EPA’s Budget and Workforce, 1970-2003…………………………………...13 Figure 2: Functions Transferred to the EPA from other Agencies…………………………..24 Figure 3: The EPA’s Organizational Structure in 1970……………………………………...27 Figure 4: The EPA’s Organizational Chart in 1971…………………………………………28 Figure 5: The EPA’s Current Organizational Chart…………………………………………29 Figure 6: Geographic Areas Serviced by the EPA’s Ten Regional Offices…………………31 Figure 7: Executive Branch Agencies with Environmental Responsibilities………………..37 Figure 8: The Dual Court System……………………………………………………………44 Figure 9: Environmental Laws Passed, Protest Activity and Public Opinion, 1960-1998……………………………………………………………….60 Figure 10: Sources of Auto Emissions……………………………………………………..206 Figure 11: Basic Controls for Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions………………………..206 Figure 12: Typical Canister System for Evaporative Emissions…………………………...208 Figure 13: EPA Research and Development Budget Appropriations Account Compared with EPA Budget Authority, FY 1976-1996……………….231 Liu viii Lists of Abbreviations AQA Air Quality Act AQCR Air Quality Control Region AWF African Wildlife Foundation BLM Bureau of Land Management BOB Bureau of the Budget CAA Clean Air Act CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission CRE Center for Regulatory Effectiveness CSE Citizens for a Sound Economy CWA Clean Water Act CWPS Council on Wage and Price Stability DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOJ U.S. Department of Justice DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EDF Environmental Defense Fund EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOP Executive Office of the President EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act FDA Food and Drug Administration FEA Federal Energy Agency Fed. Reg. Federal Register Liu ix FEO Federal Energy Office FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FIFRA Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticides Act FOIA Freedom of Information Act FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act GAO Government Accountability Office GDP Gross Domestic Product GNP Gross National Product HEW U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HWETF Hazardous Waste Enforcement Task Force IEA International Energy Agency LCV League of Conservation Voters LEV Low Emission Vehicle MTBE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisory Council NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NIMBY No-In-My-Backyard NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC National Research Council NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NWF National Wildlife Federation Liu x OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OEO Office of Economic Opportunity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Neglected Question of Congressional Oversight of Epa: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (Who Shall Watch the Watchers Themselves)?
    THE NEGLECTED QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF EPA: QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES (WHO SHALL WATCH THE WATCHERS THEMSELVES)? RICHARD J. LAZARUS* I INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the federal environmental protection laws within its charge have received much attention in the literature during the past twenty years. Commentators have frequently considered the relationship of EPA to the courts, including the advantages and disadvantages of both more and less exacting judicial review of agency decisions.' Scholars have likewise periodically examined the peculiar way in which Congress has drafted the federal environmental protection laws to ensure their achievement of policy goals. 2 These laws have Copyright © 1991 by Law and Contemporary Problems * Associate Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis. In my plenary review of EPA's first twenty years, reproduced later in this volume, I describe more fully the collision of institutional forces (including those unleashed by Congress) that have surrounded EPA, why they developed, and how they have affected both EPA and the evolution of federal environmental law. See RichardJ. Lazarus, The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal EnvironmentalLaw, 54 L & Contemp Probs 311 (Autumn 1991). This article explores in greater depth the causes and effects of congressional oversight of EPA, a specific topic for discussion at the Symposium on EPA sponsored by the Duke University and Washington University Schools of Law in November 1990. The article benefitted greatly from the comments I received at the symposium, especially those offered by Joel Aberbach, Don Elliott, Anne Shields, and Steve Shimberg. Kathleen Lindenberger and Cathy Varley provided valuable research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Records That Petitioners Seek Is Attached to the Petition, Filed Concurrently Herewith
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists petition this Court for an order directing the release of President Richard M. Nixon’s thirty-five-year- old grand jury testimony and associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.1 On June 23-24, 1975, President Nixon testified before two members of a federal grand jury who had traveled from Washington, DC, to San Clemente, California. The testimony was then presented in Washington, DC, to the full grand jury that had been convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and other wrongdoing falling under the umbrella term Watergate. Watergate was the defining event of Richard Nixon’s presidency. In the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged and the civil rights movement in the United States continued its momentum, the Watergate scandal ignited a crisis of confidence in government leadership and a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process. “Watergate” was 1A list of the records that petitioners seek is attached to the Petition, filed concurrently herewith.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Temptation
    TOXIC TEMPTATION The Revolving Door, Bureaucratic Inertia and the Disappointment of the EPA Superfund Program Eric J. Greenberg THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY 1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 223-0299 TOXIC TEMPTATION The Revolving Door, Bureaucratic Inertia and the Disappointment of the EPA Superfund Program Eric J. Greenberg THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY 1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-0299 "Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our national government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with honor in future years: 'I served the United States government in that hour of our nation's need.'" - John F. Kennedy "To the extent that the public believes that people who move in and out of government are doing so in order to advance their own economic interest as opposed to representing the public interest when they are in government, that's not a good thing for society." -- William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA's first and fifth Administrator, 1991 "I've had it with patriotism: I'm into greed now." - Anne Gorsuch Burford, EPA Administrator, 1981-1983, to Regardie's Magazine, August 1984 The Center for Public Integrity is an independent nonprofit organization that examines public service and ethics-related issues. The Center's Reports combine the substantive study of government with in-depth journalism. The Center is funded by foundations, corporations, labor unions, individuals and revenue from news organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruckelshaus Weighs in on EPA-Bashing
    Ruckelshaus weighs in on EPA-bashing Original Reporting | By James Lardner | Environment, Regulation March 9, 2011 — In 1983, Ronald Reagan needed a symbol of integrity to run the Environmental Pro- tection Administration and put the lid on a scandal involving its Superfund cleanup program. He turned to William Ruckelshaus, who had won the environ- mental movement’s respect as the agency’s first leader from 1970 to 1972, and then, in the “Satur- day night massacre” of October 1973, had resigned as Deputy Attorney General rather than carry out President Richard Nixon’s order to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had taken the Wa- tergate cover-up more seriously than he was sup- posed to. Last week, Remapping Debate sought out the 78-year-old Ruckelshaus — who has also worked as an executive or director at various corporations, including Weyerhauser and Browning Ferris Industries — for some historical perspective on environmental policy and the way the EPA and other rule-making agencies are treated by elected officials nowadays. A lifelong Republican, Ruckelshaus endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008, citing Obama’s campaign commitment to action on climate change as one big reason. Once upon a time the GOP supported environmental protections… Ruckelshaus’s memories of Washington stretch back four decades to a time when, as he recalled, “the Clean Air Act passed the House by 374 to 1; it passed the Senate by 73 to nothing. These were not partisan issues,” he said. “They have become much more partisan since.” He was quick to add that some of Congress’s habits, such as not giving an agency remotely enough funding to accomplish its statutory goals, are longstanding.
    [Show full text]
  • James Strock Bio Environment-Social-Governance
    James Strock Environmental | Social | Governance James Strock is a writer, speaker, entrepreneur, lawyer, and reformer in business, government, and politics, in the United States and abroad. Strock is founder and CEO of the Serve to Lead Group, serving clients across the U.S. and around the world, including companies in various sectors, NGOs, and government entities. He serves on the board of CVR Energy (NYSE: CVI). From 2010-12 he served as co-chair of the Arizona Governor’s Solar Energy Advisory Task Force. Immediately prior to establishing his company in 1997, Strock served for more than six years in California Governor Pete Wilson’s cabinet as the state’s founding Secretary for Environmental Protection. Following confirmation by the state senate, Strock led the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), an organization comprising 4000 employees, achieving significant, worldwide environmental, energy, and economic impact. Strock’s public service is built on five pillars: high environmental standards; simplified regulatory process; strict enforcement; entrepreneurial leadership; decentralized decision- making; market mechanisms to apply private sector innovation to public needs. These areas of emphasis have helped foster the dramatic cultural changes now advancing environmental improvement and sustainability through intergenerational accountability and continuous innovation. During his tenure, major advances were achieved in protection of air, land, and water. He led the agency to a focus on green technology development, recognized with a $100,000 "Innovation" award from Harvard University and the Ford Foundation. Other Cal/EPA achievements during his service include the adjudication and restoration of Mono Lake; significant reductions in air pollution from mobile and stationary sources; reform of pesticide regulation; and international initiatives ranging from participation in the negotiation and implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement to enhanced cooperation with Germany, China and other nations.
    [Show full text]
  • JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the Last
    STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DEAN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS: “LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION AND OTHER CRIMES.” JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness. Rather I accepted the invitation to appear today because I hope I can give a bit of historical context to the Mueller Report. In many ways the Mueller Report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate “Road Map” (officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives”) was to President Richard Nixon. Stated a bit differently, Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee a road map. The Mueller Report, like the Watergate Road Map, conveys findings, with supporting evidence, of potential criminal activity based on the work of federal prosecutors, FBI investigators, and witness testimony before a federal grand jury. The Mueller Report explains – in Vol. II, p. 1 – that one of the reasons the Special Counsel did not make charging decisions relating to obstruction of justice was because he did not want to “potentially preempt [the] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The report then cites at footnote 2: “See U.S. CONST. ART. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).” Today, you are focusing on Volume II of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 79 Issue 6 Article 2 November 2011 Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? Robert V. Percival Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert V. Percival, Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? , 79 Fordham L. Rev. 2487 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol79/iss6/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHO’S IN CHARGE? DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE DIRECTIVE AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY REGULATORY DECISIONS? Robert V. Percival* Most regulatory statutes specify that agency heads rather than the President shall make regulatory decisions .1 Yet for more than four decades every President has established some program to require pre-decisional review and clearance of agency regulatory decisions, usually conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).2 On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama joined his seven predecessors in expressly endorsing regulatory review when he signed Executive Order 13,563.3 President Obama’s regulatory review program generally emulates those of his two most recent predecessors, relying on OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review only the most significant agency rulemaking actions.4 Although this form of presidential oversight of rulemaking is now well established, an important, unresolved question is whether the President has the authority to dictate the substance of regulatory decisions entrusted by statute to agency heads.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing the Administrative State: Chevron Debates and the Transformation of Constitutional Politics
    DECONSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: CHEVRON DEBATES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS CRAIG GREEN* ABSTRACT This Article contrasts Reagan-era conservative support for Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC with conservative opposition to Chevron deference today. That dramatic shift offers important context for understanding how future attacks on the administrative state will develop. Newly collected historical evidence shows a sharp pivot after President Obama’s reelection, and conservative opposition to Chevron deference has become stronger ever since. The sudden emergence of anti-Chevron critiques, along with their continued growth during a Republican presidency, suggests that such arguments will increase in power and popularity for many years to come. Although critiques of Chevron invoke timeless rhetoric about constitutional structure, those critiques began at a very specific moment, and that historical coincidence fuels existing skepticism about such arguments’ substantive merit. This Article analyzes institutional questions surrounding Chevron with deliberate separation from modern politics. Regardless of one’s substantive opinions about President Trump, federal regulation, or administrative deference, this Article identifies extraordinary costs to the legal system of overruling Chevron through mechanisms of constitutional law. * Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Ph.D., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Many thanks for comments from participants at the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and the Philadelphia Law Department’s Annual Conference. Thanks also for individual suggestions from Kent Barnett, Jane Baron, Pamela Bookman, Heather Elliott, Kellen Funk, Tara Leigh Grove, Joseph Hall, Jonathan Lipson, Jane Manners, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Andrea Monroe, Lauren Ouziel, Rachel Rebouché, Dan Rodgers, and Neil Siegel.
    [Show full text]
  • Stage 3: Congressional Hearings in March 1973, Judge Sirica Sentenced Liddy, Hunt, and Four of the Burglars to 20, 35, and 40 Years in Prison, Respectively
    Student Handout 23A Stage 3: Congressional Hearings In March 1973, Judge Sirica sentenced Liddy, Hunt, and four of the burglars to 20, 35, and 40 years in prison, respectively. McCord admitted just before the sentencing that there was more information to be shared. Thus Sirica delayed sentencing him. Soon thereafter, L. Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI, admitted to having destroyed Watergate evidence. He then resigned. In May, North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities, con- vened televised hearings on Watergate. Many Americans watched the hearings with great fascination. In June, John Dean, whom Nixon had fired as White House counsel in April, testified before the Senate Select Committee. He revealed that the former attorney general, John Mitchell—who had become Nixon’s 1972 pres- idential campaign manager—had ordered the Watergate break-in. Dean explained that the White House was covering up its involvement. He also testified that the president had authorized payments of hush money to the burglars to keep them quiet. Nixon’s aides vehemently denied this charge. On July 16, White House aide Alexander Butterfield testified. He revealed startling information—that Nixon had had a taping system installed in the White House to automatically record all conversations there. Only a hand- included 350,000 angry telegrams sent to Congress and ful of people had known about the system. Now, the the White House. The president responded by appointing hearing’s key questions—what did the president know, another special Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and and when did he know it—could be answered by listening then turning over the subpoenaed tapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the City-County Council and Special Service District Councils of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana Monday, December 9, 2019
    MINUTES OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019 The City-County Council of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana and the Indianapolis Police Special Service District Council, Indianapolis Fire Special Service District Council and Indianapolis Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Council convened in regular concurrent sessions in the Council Chamber of the City-County Building at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 9, 2019, with Councillor Osili presiding. Councillor Cordi recognized Pastor Tim Lindsey, Lifeline Baptist Church, who led the opening prayer. Councillor Cordi then invited all present to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL The President instructed the Clerk to take the roll call and requested members to register their presence on the voting machine. The roll call was as follows: 23 PRESENT: Adamson, Coats, Cordi, Coulter, Evans, Fanning, Graves, Gray, Harris, Holliday, Jackson, Johnson, Lewis, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Mowery, Oliver, Osili, Ray, Robinson, Shreve, Wesseler 2 ABSENT: Scales, Simpson A quorum of twenty-three members being present, the President called the meeting to order. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS And VISITORS Councillor McQuillen recognized Councillor McHenry’s husband Fred. Councillor Oliver recognized Marion County Clerk Myla Eldridge, Deputy Clerk NaTrina DeBow, and constituent Erin Latchett. Councillor Adamson recognized AFSCME representatives Georgia Cravey and Michael Torres. Councillor McHenry recognized residents of District 6 who showed up this evening to support others being recognized. Councillor Robinson recognized Pike Township elected officials, Senator Greg Taylor and Trustee Annette Johnson. Councillor Harris recognized Mayor of Clermont, Nancy Baxter.
    [Show full text]
  • An Indians – Project on the Judiciary
    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Native American Rights Fund ATTORNEYS John E. Echohawk Richard A. Guest 1514 P Street, NW (Rear), Suite D, Washington, D.C. 20005 Joel W. Williams LITIGATION MANAGEMENT (202) 785-4166 • FAX (202) 822-0068 COMMITTEE www.narf.org BOULDER OFFICE K. Jerome Gottschalk 1506 Broadway St. Natalie A. Landreth Boulder, CO 80302-6296 Melody L. McCoy Nae Ph. (303) 447-8760 ATTORNEYS 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302-6296 • FAX (303) 443-7776 Matthew L. Campbell K. Jerome Gottschalk (303) 447-8760 • FAX (303) 443-7776 ANCHORAGE OFFICE th David L. Gover 745 W. 4 Avenue, Ste. 502 Melody L. McCoy Anchorage, AK 99501-1736 Steven C. Moore Susan Y. Noe Ph. (907) 276-0680 Brett Lee Shelton March 16, 2017 FAX (907) 276-2466 Donald R. Wharton Heather D. Whiteman Runs Him ATTORNEYS Heather R. Kendall-Miller CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Natalie A. Landreth Michael Kennedy Erin C. Dougherty Matthew L. Newman DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPEMENT MEMORANDUM Don Ragona CORPORATE SECRETARY Ray Ramirez TO: Tribal Leaders and Tribal Attorneys National Congress of American Indians – Project on the Judiciary FROM: Richard Guest, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund RE: The Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States – An Indian Law Perspective On Monday, March 20, 2017, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary will begin confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Gorsuch on January 31, 2017, as his pick to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
    [Show full text]
  • The EPA at Fifty Symposium: Keynote Address
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 70 Issue 4 Article 5 2020 The EPA at Fifty Symposium: Keynote Address Andrew Wheeler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Wheeler, The EPA at Fifty Symposium: Keynote Address, 70 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 883 (2020) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol70/iss4/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 70·Issue 4·2020 The EPA at Fifty Symposium: Keynote Address Andrew Wheeler† Good afternoon, it is a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you to Professor Jonathan Adler for the introduction. We have known each other for at least twenty years. I also want to thank the University for hosting me. It is great to be back at Case Western. I graduated with my undergraduate degree here in 1987. I almost went to law school here. As I was making my decision, my car was stolen for the second time from just outside my dorm. The campus has changed a lot since the 1980s; it is a lot safer. But when it was stolen for the second time, I decided I wanted to be in a different city, and I went to Washington University in St.
    [Show full text]