Thursday
Jun042009
Pelosi: Democrats Stand By The IMF
By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service
Despite the uncertainties that Congressional Republican leaders have on the efficacy of the reform of the International Monetary Fund, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is adamant that “The IMF will have a strong support from the Democrats.”
Pelosi defended the international organization today at her weekly press conference where she also mentioned the success of her recent bipartisan trip to China.
House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Whip Eric Cantormay, backed by other House Representatives who fear that Democrats are fusing two very different entities, the IMF and a bill, together, said that "Weighing down this critical legislation with non-defense spending will only drag this process out further and cost it essential Republican support needed for passage."
Cantor added that “We should not be having this discussion. IMF funding has no business being included in the war supplemental bill,” while adding that the funding may result in helping terror-sponsoring states such as Pakistan.
The debate over funding of the IMF has stemmed from President Barack Obama’s announcement at the April Group of 20 meeting that $100 billion will be granted to the IMF as part of the U.S war-bill which should further the fight against the global economic crisis.
Obama also said that the U.S would support the IMF as it sell 400 tons of gold, whilst Pelosi reminded that “It [the IMF] has been reformed so that it will help the poor. They wanted to sell gold, we said you can, but the proceeds have to go to help the poor.”
Responding to Cantor’s allegations, Pelosi said “I don’t know why anyone would say that the money is going to the hands of terrorists, it’s simply not based on facts and is a scare tactic.”
Pelosi also said “There are two contradictory things: one says that one shouldn’t be on war funding, which is our responsibility to support our troops in the war in Iraq, end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home and fight terrorism where is it a threat to our country, which is in Afghanistan, and we know that we have to do that." She added that “The IMF, in its reformed state, can be a force for alleviating the despair amongst people in the world. It’s a very important national security initiative.”
“The issue of the IMF, I think, has strong support on the Democrats’ side; not any support we’re hearing on the Republican side,” Pelosi said.
This war-bill, which involves military and diplomacy costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, will skyrocket to over $100 billion.
Despite the uncertainties that Congressional Republican leaders have on the efficacy of the reform of the International Monetary Fund, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is adamant that “The IMF will have a strong support from the Democrats.”
Pelosi defended the international organization today at her weekly press conference where she also mentioned the success of her recent bipartisan trip to China.
House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Whip Eric Cantormay, backed by other House Representatives who fear that Democrats are fusing two very different entities, the IMF and a bill, together, said that "Weighing down this critical legislation with non-defense spending will only drag this process out further and cost it essential Republican support needed for passage."
Cantor added that “We should not be having this discussion. IMF funding has no business being included in the war supplemental bill,” while adding that the funding may result in helping terror-sponsoring states such as Pakistan.
The debate over funding of the IMF has stemmed from President Barack Obama’s announcement at the April Group of 20 meeting that $100 billion will be granted to the IMF as part of the U.S war-bill which should further the fight against the global economic crisis.
Obama also said that the U.S would support the IMF as it sell 400 tons of gold, whilst Pelosi reminded that “It [the IMF] has been reformed so that it will help the poor. They wanted to sell gold, we said you can, but the proceeds have to go to help the poor.”
Responding to Cantor’s allegations, Pelosi said “I don’t know why anyone would say that the money is going to the hands of terrorists, it’s simply not based on facts and is a scare tactic.”
Pelosi also said “There are two contradictory things: one says that one shouldn’t be on war funding, which is our responsibility to support our troops in the war in Iraq, end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home and fight terrorism where is it a threat to our country, which is in Afghanistan, and we know that we have to do that." She added that “The IMF, in its reformed state, can be a force for alleviating the despair amongst people in the world. It’s a very important national security initiative.”
“The issue of the IMF, I think, has strong support on the Democrats’ side; not any support we’re hearing on the Republican side,” Pelosi said.
This war-bill, which involves military and diplomacy costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, will skyrocket to over $100 billion.
tagged Barack Obama, Diplomacy, Eric Cantor, Gold, House Minority Leader, House Speaker, IMF, Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Whip, afghanistan, allegations, alleviation, democrat, john boehner, military, pakistan, president, republicans, terrorism, terrorists, war-bil in Congress, Frontpage 2, News/Commentary
Lake-Destroying Mining Operation OK, High Court Rules
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had already approved the project, which was being disputed by a coalition of Alaskan environmental groups. In upholding the agencies' approval, the Court upheld its familiar rule that federal agencies are entitled to deference.
The case stemmed out of a proposal by Couer Alaska to reopen the Kensington Gold Mine, near Juneau, which had been closed since 1928. Couer hoped to make the mine profitable by using a technique called "froth flotation" to pull gold-bearing minerals to the top of a tank of roiling water. Couer would then dispose of the crushed rock and water slurry in the Lower Slate Lake, three miles away in the Tongass National Forest. The slurry would almost completely fill the 23-acre lake, currently 51 feet deep at its maximum, transforming it into a 60-acre lake about one foot deep. In the process, all the fish and fauna in the lake would die.
The alternative, Coeur argued, was to place the slurry on nearby wetlands, creating a pile that would rise twice as high and cover three times the area of the Pentagon. This would permanently destroy dozens of acres of wetlands.
Couer needed federal approval before it could proceed with its plan. Two separate provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) seemed to give authority over the discharge of slurry to both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over the creation of wetlands, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for monitoring levels of waste in the water.
The Army Corps approved the gold mining plan, finding it was the "least environmentally damaging" way to dispose of the slurry, and that the damage would only be temporary, since in the future the reclaimed lake will be an even better wildlife habitat. The EPA declined to veto the Corps permit.
The permit was challenged by the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), a coalition of 12 Alaskan environmental groups. According to SEACC, the Army Corps did not have the authority to approve the mining operation because a section of the CWA forbids even tiny solid waste discharges -- and that includes the slurry discharge, 30% of which is solid waste. The company and the federal government argued that another section of the CWA grants the Army Corps blanket authority to permit the discharge of the slurry.
In light of the ambiguities in the CWA, the Court looked to the agencies' interpretation -- and found that the agencies had resolved the problem "in a reasonable and coherent way." An internal EPA memo explained that the prohibition on solid waste discharge applies not to the initial discharge of slurry into the lake, but to any further discharge into downstream waters.
The Army Corps had the sole authority to grant the permit, the Court ruled, because the slurry would fall under the regulations for "fill material," which is solely under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps, not the EPA.
Three justices dissented, arguing that the use of waters as "settling ponds" for harmful mining waste runs "antithetical to the text, structure and purpose of the Clean Water Act."
The case was Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (07-984/07-990).