Document YGwj4k3VL1BO1kz5d8gw9dXKN

Proposal for Government Relations Services on behalf of the Lead Industries Association November 1996 Submitted Nutter & Harris Introduction When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, many industry groups anticipated a reduction of environmental regulation and a change in direction of environmental and natural resource legislation. However, the Republican majority realized how difficult it is to change course on most environmental initiatives. They found that politics and sound bites rule the debate in the environmental arena. The result was one major environmental bill passed -- amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Clearly delineating partisan differences. President Clinton also vetoed a number of bills sent to him by the Republicans, citing the environment among the reasons for the vetoes. Despite the high expectations, environmental reforms in the 104th Congress were among the greatest disappointments. Other issues the 104th Congress attempted to address included: General Regulatory Reform; Clean Water Act reforms; Superfund reforms; RCRA and land disposal restriction reforms; and, Endangered Species Act reform. Many faces in Congress will change after the election. There were 35 open seats in the House of Representatives going into the election. When the Senate organizes next year under continuing Republican leadership, there will be 15 new Members. President Clinton won a significant reelection victory but with short coattails, showing congressional races generally are not determined by party affiliation. Issues unresolved in the 104th Congress will re-emerge next year. While major environmental reforms in Congress were set aside because of partisan differences, regulatory initiatives have continued - including a variety of lead proposals. While the emphasis and regulatory venue may change, the same set of issues dominate. Major issues remaining, include: Lead in Soils Regulation of Lead Uses Pollution Prevention Proposal November 1996 page 2  Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) International OECD Council Act UNECE Clean air regulations, such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Toxicity Characteristic Lead Paint Abatement Programs We expect continued and even intensified scrutiny of lead. The lead industry faces an ever present barrage of negative coverage by local and national media and increasing pressures from consumer safety groups and environmentalists. It is often difficult to separate public issues into discrete categories such as regulatory or legislative. Regulatory inaction or initiatives that overreach often lead to a legislative response. For example, during the last Congress, the industry was successful in thwarting international lead initiatives by the OECD by increasing political pressure on EPA and the State Department. There will be opportunities for similar action in the new Congress, given the reelection of a Republican Congress and an environmentally activist Clinton/Gore Administration. In addition, new administrative proposals on such issues as lead paint abatement could lead to congressional action on taxes to fund abatement programs. The release of EPA's report "Environmental Health Threats to Children," identifying lead poisoning as the top environmental health threat to children, signals a strong potential of renewed efforts to target lead in a second Clinton/Gore Administration. New issues continue to emerge, such as lead in vinyl blinds and playground equipment painted with industrial leaded paint. Of course, the lead paint in housing issue remains of great interest to the press and activists. Nutter & Harris proposes a program presenting a coordinated and consistent message about the lead industry to key audiences, especially Congress. With narrow margins in both the House and Senate, neither party can move legislation alone. The 1996 elections are expected to create a new "center." Therefore, involvement in Proposal November 1996 page 3 all levels of debate and discussion on issues will be paramount to how the "center" becomes defined. The government relations program will include: Proactive communications before the 105th Congress; Grassroots development activities; Coordinated congressional strategies with regulatory activities; and Coordinated congressional strategies with communications program. The Issues When the 105th Congress convenes in January, the Republican leadership will be determined by slim margins, especially in the House where the Democrats appear to have gained about 10 seats. The election results appear to indicate the country seeks a moderate, bi-partisan government with the Republican Congress and the Democratic Administration working together. What does this mean? The second term of the Clinton/Gore Administration is likely to be environmentally proactive and take a more preservationist stance, with Vice President Gore positioning to run for president in 2000. The environment became a defining issue in differentiating the Republican and Democrat parties. Environmentalists have been re-energized and now have a friendly ear in the White House. It would be foolish not to expect the environmentalists to intensify pressure on the second Clinton/Gore Administration. Given the politics of 1996, Republicans will redefine themselves as having a more moderate environmental agenda than the previous Congress. Throughout the last year, we saw Republicans repositioning themselves on the environment to head off serious attacks from the environmental community and reassure the " pro environment public" that the Republican party was not radical. Republicans in Congress will have to carefully pick and choose issues where they will confront the Administration on the environment. Environmental issues will be among the priorities and a moderate approach can be expected. A long list of environmental legislation will be on the agenda in 1997, including: Proposal November 1996 page 4  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act reforms (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Clean-up and Liability Act (Superfund) reauthorization; Risk Assessment/Regulatory Reform; Clean Air Act (CAA) reforms; Endangered Species Act; and, Clean Water Act (CWA) reauthorization. In determining a legislative agenda on the environment, the leadership must limit its expectations. Superfund and the Endangered Species Act are sure to be at the top of the list. Pressure will come from many quarters to renew regulatory reform efforts. Only a bi-partisan bill can pass. Issues such as total maximum daily loads (TMDL) may push a Clean Water bill into a priority category. Bi-partisan, consensus approaches on RCRA may be possible once again. While it is impossible to project a precise lead agenda, there are potential issues on the horizon. These include: Product regulation/SNUR/TSCA legislation; Lead taxes; and Appropriations. To counter Clinton/Gore political positioning on environmental issues prior to the election, we have already seen House Republicans accuse the Administration of allowing lead emissions to significantly increase after years of decline during the previous Republican Administrations. The Clinton Administration has already begun to set an agenda for the second term. The EPA has identified lead poisoning as a top environmental health threat to children in a report released in September 1996. While many industry groups regard the release of the report as purely political, environmental groups are expected to push the Administration for action. A more activist agenda on lead is likely. Proposal November 1996 page 5 New EPA efforts to regulate lead-using sources under clean air authorities are under consideration. This is an extension of past efforts to pressure lead users and force substitution -- switching the focus from product regulations to other federal regulatory programs and statutes. Regulations through NAAQS would create further disincentives for lead production. An underlying theme to federal lead policies has been the substitution for lead or lead-containing products. The SNUR and other lead initiatives at EPA have been directed toward substitution. The SNUR, while long dormant, could return to active status. With no action on a lead SNUR over the past two years, environmental advocates could go to Congress and push for action on a Reid-type bill again. Other specific proposals, ranging from international agreements to clean air regulatory targeting, push user industries away from lead and create further disincentives for lead production. While LIA successfully countered efforts for a broad-based international lead agreement through OECD, an new initiative on lead has emerged in the UNECE under a Heavy Metals Protocol. The UNECE proposal combines dual disincentives by establishing emissions limits, the phase out of leademitting processes where substitutes are available, and the phase out of certain leadcontaining products. The HUD lead-based paint abatement program continues at a high level. The implications for clean up of public housing are significant because current funding levels are not adequate to pay for the program -- an issue addressed by the HUD Task Force. This raises the spectrum of a new push for a federal tax to meet the costs. Given alternative funding sources, lead would become a target once again. Once again in 1997, Superfund reform will be a priority. ISRI will push for its third party recycling exemption. LIA should continue its lobbying program to protect the membership from attempts to exclude certain parties from liability. Proposal November 1996 page 6 The Program While the outcome of the fall elections have now been determined, the final shape of a program cannot be fully determined until Congress reorganizes over the next month. Nutter & Harris proposes to develop an integrated proactive strategy to counter potential anti-lead initiatives. The program includes: Communications with the 105th Congress; Grassroots development activities, including coalition building, regional briefings and plant visits; Coordinated congressional strategies with regulatory activities; and, Coordinated congressional strategies with the communications program. 1. We will develop and implement a bi-partisan lobbying program on key issues identified by LIA. The central focus of the program will be Superfund reform, lead taxes, and administrative and regulatory initiatives deemed appropriate for a congressional response. Should other anti-lead legislation be introduced and considered, we will amend the program to meet such needs as may be identified. Major committees of jurisdiction on the environment, appropriations and taxes will continue to be the primary focus of the program. These include: United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee on Appropriations Committee on Finance Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Appropriations Committee on Ways and Means Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Proposal November 1996 page 7 2. In addition, identifying and targeting new Members is a key element of a proactive legislative program. We will work with LIA staff and members to coordinate and direct a grassroots communication program targeted toward key Members of Congress, especially new Members of the Senate and House. Using existing data, we have identified LIA members and lead users having significant constituencies in 31 states, and more specifically 93 Congressional districts. There are 35 open House seats which are certain to have new Members unfamiliar with lead issues in the federal legislative arena. We have identified 33 that have a lead or lead-using constituency. The open House seats are composed of 14 retiring Republicans and 19 retiring Democrats. In the Senate there are 14 open seats including Senator Bill Bradley (R-NJ), who proposed a lead abatement trust fund in 1993. Thirteen of the open Senate seats have lead user constituencies. We recommend a coordinated program to educate these Members on key lead facts and issues. We will work with member companies, customers and lead user groups to identify links between important issues and key Members of Congress - implementing appropriate responses. Nutter & Harris will assist in developing grassroots action plans and constituent coalitions (national and/or regional), and in arranging plant visits and regional meetings with Members of Congress. Early introductions and grassroots activities will be important in establishing a positive lead message on Capitol Hill. Nutter & Harris will assist LIA in strengthening the grassroots program achieving: awareness of the legislative activities among LIA members and lead users and constituent presence within legislators' offices on Capitol Hill and in their state and district offices. The Product Expo instituted in 1996 demonstrated its effectiveness as a tool to educate Members about lead, its uses and related issues. LIA should institute the Proposal November 1996 page 8 Expo as an ongoing activity bi-annually. We recommend, however, the Expo be held again in 1997 because of the new Congress. 3. The lobbying program should be fully integrated with ongoing communications efforts and the regulatory program. Targeted bi-partisan lobbying activities can be effectively used to support LIA's regulatory initiatives. This has proven effective in the past. A targeted effort on major issues - working with coalitions where possible -- can help the industry counter onerous regulatory initiatives or facilitate, in a proactive manner, regulatory proposals for the industry. In addition, as the liaison for the industry with Capitol Hill offices, Nutter & Harris will coordinate the government relations program with LIA's communications efforts. Targeted communications efforts in states and districts with a strong lead presence can help overcome many of the negatives seen and read in the media. Conclusion Nutter & Harris is pleased to present a proposal to LIA. We see great potential for mischief during the coming months, and we have presented LIA with an integrated program to position the industry to counter efforts by anti-lead activists. The program combines on-going lobbying activities with a targeted approach to develop stronger messages and communications with the new Congress. It will tie together internal and external communications, regulatory programs, and lobbying, providing LIA with a more effective presence to manage continuing and new issues. Proposal November 1996 page 9