Washington, D.C., June 14, 2012- A distinguished group of retired senior U.S. military leaders - who earned between them 33 stars - released a letter voicing strong concerns that ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST) would be detrimental to the national interests of the United States.  This letter was sent on the day Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, convened a hearing on LOST featuring six currently serving U.S. military commanders - what he has called his "24-star panel" - who will argue in favor of ratification.
The letter states in part:
"Much is being made at the moment of the support of the U.S. military for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  In your Foreign Relations Committee hearings to date, you have invited testimony from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and six other serving four-star commanders.  We wish respectfully to challenge the perception that military personnel uniformly support this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that LOST's ratification would prove inimical both to the national security interests and sovereignty of the United States."
The letter goes on to list five reasons why this is the case, including:
  1. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign LOST due to objections that went beyond those concerning deep seabed mining - objections that were not addressed in a subsequent 1994 agreement
  2. LOST ratification would dangerously empower the United Nations
  3. LOST would submit all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities inherently rigged against the United States
  4. LOST would require the United States to make commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests
  5. The United States cannot be assured of its ability to exempt "military activities" from mandatory dispute resolution.
The military leaders who have signed this letter are:
  • Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command; Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
  • Adm. Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
  • Adm. G.E.R. Kinnear II, USN (Ret.), Former U.S. Member of the NATO Military Committee
  • Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander-in Chief, Headquarters U.S. European Command
  • Adm. James "Ace" Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
  • Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.), Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
  • Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.), Former Director of Navy Research, Development Testing and Evaluation
  • Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
  • Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Forces Europe and NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., of the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, said:
"The United States Senate and the American people owe a debt of gratitude to the distinguished signatories of this letter.  They have once again answered the call to serve, this time in the form of providing a badly needed military perspective on the national security implications of LOST.  With this important input, Senators are on notice that the argument the U.S. military unanimously supports this treaty is unfounded - and no substitute for a critical evaluation of the treaty and other, similarly flawed claims made by the treaty's proponents."
Text of the Letter

June 14, 2012
Hon. John Kerry
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
444 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802
Dear Chairman Kerry:
Much is being made at the moment of the support of the U.S. military for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). In your Foreign Relations Committee hearings to date, you have invited testimony from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and six other serving four-star commanders. We wish respectfully to challenge the perception that military personnel uniformly support this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that LOST's ratification would prove inimical both to the national security interests and sovereignty of the United States.
This conclusion is ineluctable given five facts about the Law of the Sea Treaty:
  1. President Ronald Reagan recognized that the terms and institutional arrangements inherent in the treaty?including, but not limited to, seabed mining?were adverse to this country insofar as they were intended and designed to establish and empower a supranational government. For these reasons, he refused to sign this accord. And, as his Counselor and Attorney General, Edwin Meese, has observed, those defects continue to afflict LOST?despite suggestions to the contrary, based on false claims that a separate agreement signed by some but not all LOST signatories satisfactorily addressed Mr. Reagan's concerns.
  2. There is already ample reason for Americans?in and out of uniform?to be leery of entrusting more power and authority to the United Nations. Yet, our membership in LOST would dangerously empower that organization. After all, this treaty creates an executive, legislature and judiciary that are supposed to govern seventy-percent of the world's surface. And LOST's institutions are intertwined with the UN system and would be capable of raising revenues. Given the UN track record of corruption and hostility to America and its allies, it would be reckless to endorse such arrangements, let alone subject ourselves to them.
  3. Of particular concern is the obligation under LOST to submit any and all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities that are inherently rigged against us. The treaty's expansive mandate is so broad?involving virtually anything affecting the world's oceans?that it is an invitation to UN and other nations' interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale.
  4. That prospect has particular implications for the national security were the United States to become a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. As such, we would be required to make myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests. These include agreeing to reserve the oceans exclusively for "peaceful purposes."  Contentions that we need not worry about such formal commitments because we, as a maritime nation with a powerful navy, are not expected to be bound by them will surely prove unfounded.
  5. The same is certain to apply to assurances that the exemption of "military activities" will preclude LOST from having harmful effects on our armed forces and their necessary operations on, over, under and from the seas. Since the treaty does not include an agreed definition of what constitutes such activities, disputes are sure to arise?disputes we will be obliged to resolve through one LOST mechanism or another. [In the attachment, Judge Advocate General Captain Vince Averna (USN, Ret.) lays out a number of the treaty's provisions that may invite such challenges.]
One example of how untenable such assurances will prove can be found in the area of anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Of necessity, ASW training to be effective must necessarily replicate actual combat operations and thus involve the periodic use of high-power sonars and explosives. Unfortunately, some assert that these training activities cause harm to ocean wildlife, like dolphins and whales, and have sought to use judicial means to restrict or preclude them.
We must, therefore, recall that, during the Clinton administration, Secretary of State Warren Christopher called LOST "the strongest comprehensive environmental treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time." That being the case, the U.S. armed forces must reckon with the prospect that what they consider to be essential and exempted military activities will be treated under LOST as environmental predation very much within the jurisdiction of its Tribunal and arbitration panels. The effect of adverse rulings, especially if enforced by federal judges, could prove devastating to our power projection and other defense capabilities.
For all these reasons (among others), it is our considered professional military judgment that the United States should remain unencumbered by state-party status in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?free to observe those provisions we chose to and unencumbered by the others. We have demonstrated in the three decades since President Reagan refused to sign LOST that as a non-party great power we can exercise great and essential influence on matters involving the oceans without being relegated to one vote among 160-plus, obliged to abide by the will and whims of a generally hostile majority without the benefit of a veto to protect American national interests. There is no basis for contending that we will be better off if we have a so-called "seat at the table" under such circumstances.
We hope our insights and conclusions will be made part of the record of your Committee's deliberations on this matter and would welcome an opportunity to participate in such deliberations if that would be helpful to you and your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, USA (Ret.)
Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command;
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Adm. Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.)
Former Chief of Naval Operations
Adm. G.E.R. Kinnear II, USN (Ret.)
Former U.S. Member of the NATO Military Committee
Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Commander-in Chief, Headquarters U.S. European Command
Adm. James "Ace" Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Former Director of Navy Research, Development Testing and Evaluation
Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.)
Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Forces Europe and
NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
cc:  Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Attachment: a/s
###

Statement of Support Signing Ceremony Demonstrates Commitment to Military Employees, Families

DEERFIELD, IL (06/14/2012)(readMedia)-- Walgreens reaffirmed its support for National Guard and Reserve members and their families today by signing a Statement of Support. Walgreens Chief Human Resources Officer Kathleen Wilson-Thompson signed the Statement on behalf of Walgreens President and CEO Greg Wasson and the company's 247,000 employees nationwide.

Walgreens has a comprehensive strategy in place to hire and transition military talent. In addition to working with the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), the company is working closely with numerous key veteran service organizations to raise awareness and support for military members, their spouses and qualified veterans. As part of its outreach strategy, Walgreens also announced today a new veteran outreach email box available at vetoutreach@walgreens.com that will serve as a resource to help link potential Walgreens applicants with the company's military and disability outreach community recruiter.

"We're proud to be a part of an organization designed to help American employers support the employment and military service of members of the National Guard and Reserve," said Wilson-Thompson. "Transitioning to civilian life is challenging for many returning service members and it is our hope that we can help provide insight and assistance to help veterans obtain civilian employment."

At the ceremony representing ESGR were National Chairman, James Rebholz; ESGR Chief of Employer Outreach, Tom Bullock; Illinois ESGR State Committee Chair, Dr. Michael Ayers, Ph.D., as well as other ESGR staff and Committee members.

"Today, supportive employers like Walgreens are critical to maintaining the strength and readiness of the nation's Guard and Reserve units. I am asking all employers to take a look at their current human resources policies to incorporate policies supportive of Guard and Reserve employees," Rebholz told Walgreens employees attending the event. "Many employers provide 'Above and Beyond' support to complement military coverage, such as providing pay differential to offset the loss of wages, and extending health care benefits while their employees are mobilized."

Walgreens has a long history of supporting American troops and veterans, from providing a store in the Pentagon beginning in the 1940s, to decades of donation and product drives, and extending company benefits to employees called to active service. Under the Walgreens military leave policy, employees called to active service receive their full salary, less military pay, for 42 months from the last day worked. In addition, they have the option of continuing medical, prescription and dental coverage at active employee rates.

Rebholz also talked about the crucial role employers play in allowing Guardsmen and Reservists to continue to serve in uniform and thanked Walgreens leadership for its culture of support for those who serve our nation.

"Walgreens joins a cadre of Fortune 500 companies, state and federal agencies and thousands of America's employers in demonstrating support for our armed forces," added Rebholz. "By signing the Statement of Support, it sends a clear message to the employees of Walgreens that while they are serving their country, they do not have to worry about their civilian jobs."

About ESGR

Today, approximately 4,800 volunteers, ranging from business executives, senior government representatives, educators and military personnel, serve on ESGR State Committees located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam-CNMI, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. With help and resources from the National ESGR Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, the 54 ESGR State Committees conduct employer support programs, including informational briefings, mediation and recognition of employers whose policies support or encourage participation in the National Guard and Reserve. By explaining the missions of the National Guard and Reserve and by increasing public awareness of the role of the employer, ESGR works to develop a dialogue among employers, the ESGR State Committees, and local National Guard and Reserve unit commanders and service members. ESGR is the lead advocate within the Department of Defense for Reserve Component employers.

For more information about careers at Walgreens, visit careers.walgreens.com.

About Walgreens

As the nation's largest drugstore chain with fiscal 2011 sales of $72 billion, Walgreens (www.walgreens.com) vision is to become America's first choice for health and daily living. Each day, Walgreens provides nearly 6 million customers the most convenient, multichannel access to consumer goods and services and trusted, cost-effective pharmacy, health and wellness services and advice in communities across America. Walgreens scope of pharmacy services includes retail, specialty, infusion, medical facility and mail service, along with respiratory services. These services improve health outcomes and lower costs for payers including employers, managed care organizations, health systems, pharmacy benefit managers and the public sector. The company operates 7,889 drugstores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Take Care Health Systems is a Walgreens subsidiary that is the largest and most comprehensive manager of worksite health and wellness centers and in-store convenient care clinics, with more than 700 locations throughout the country.

Club for Growth President Chris Chocola: "It is good news that Congress is finally talking about spending cuts, but our review of voting records show that we have a long way to go if we're going to achieve smaller government." 

Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today launched a new Spending Cut Scorecard designed for members of the public and Club Members to track how members of the House of Representatives are voting on amendments to cut spending from the FY13 appropriations bills. In the past, the Club for Growth tracked amendments to cut earmarks from appropriations bills, but recently noticed that many House members who ran on promises to cut spending have abandoned their pledges to do so.

The Club will include clean spending cut amendments and will update the Spending Cut Scorecard following the passage of every appropriations bill. To view the new Spending Cut Scorecard, click here: www.ClubForGrowth.org/SpendingCutScorecard

Thus far, interesting statistics from the Spending Cut Scorecard include :

  • 20 members of the House have voted for every amendment to cut spending. All are Republicans.
  • 50 members of the House have voted against every amendment to cut spending. 49 are Democrats. One is a Republican (Bonner).
  • The average Republican voted for spending cuts 59% of the time.  Republican Freshman are only slightly better at 60%.
  • The average Democrat voted for spending cuts 6% of the time.
  • The nine Republicans, including four freshmen, who have least often voted to cut spending are: Bonner 0%, Meehan 4%, LaTourette 4%, Bass 4%, Simpson 4%, Lucas 4%, King, P. 4%, Grimm 4%, and Dold 4%
  • The eight Democrats who have most often voted to cut spending are: Matheson 32%, Rush 31%, Kucinich 30%, Polis 28%, Cooper 20%, McIntyre 17%, Velazquez 17%, and Honda 17%

"It is good news that Congress is finally talking about spending cuts, but our review of voting records show that we have a long way to go if we're going to achieve smaller government," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. "It's important that Americans hold their members of Congress accountable for their votes and the Club for Growth intends to continue to make it easy for them to do so."

"The Club continues to be disappointed, in particular, by the big spenders in the Republican Party. With a $16 trillion debt, voting to keep discretionary spending in appropriations bills is simply kicking hard choices into the future and passing the buck to future generations. House Leadership is clearly not pushing its conference to vote for spending cuts offered on the floor," added Chocola.

The Club for Growth is the nation's leading group promoting economic freedom through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, and education.

The Club's website can be found at http://www.clubforgrowth.org/

The 28th annual Mississippi Valley Blues Festival is less than three weeks away, but the event is still seeking volunteers.  Workers are needed for all positions during the later shifts and on Sunday July 1.

The Mississippi Valley Blues Festival could not survive without the work of its volunteers.  Those who sign up to work a 3 to 4-hour shift will receive:

•              Free Admission

•              Free Fest T-Shirt

To register, go to www.mvbs.org and click on BluesFest, then Volunteers.  That will take you to the registration page.

Or call the MVBS office at 563-322-5837.

The Mississippi Valley Blues Festival is produced by the non-profit Mississippi Valley Blues Society.  The 2012 lineup features the usual mix of up-and-coming blues stars as well as legends, with 24 acts on two stages over the weekend of June 29-July 1 in Davenport's LeClaire Park.

Advance tickets for the 2012 BluesFest are available at all Quad-City Hy-Vee stores, Hy-Vees in Clinton and Muscatine, Muddy Waters in Bettendorf, Rascals in Moline, Martinis on the Rock in Rock Island, and through the MVBS office at 563-32-BLUES.  Advance tickets are only $12.50 per day;  tickets at the gate are $15 per day.

MORE REMINDERS
Two excellent talks on Saturday, June 16, 2012.
Try to hear them both.

Civility With A German Immigrant Accent - a talk by Jim Leach on the impact of German immigrants on the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Crossing Perry Street:  Working Women and Sporting Men in Der Freie Staat Scott - a talk by Dr. Jane Simonsen at  The GAHC.

The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point honored 2,510 undergraduate students for attaining high grade point averages during the spring semester of the 2011-2012 academic year.  Those honored include Rachael M Wauer of Bettendorf.

Full-time undergraduates who earned grade points of 3.90 to 4.0 (4.0 equals straight A) are given the highest honors designation. High honor citations go to those with grade point averages from 3.75 to 3.89 and honor recognition is accorded to those with grade point averages from 3.50 to 3.74.

Press Conference Ahead of Romney Event in Davenport Monday

DES MOINES - Today, Davenport Police Officer Thomas Hadden, Correctional Officer Tim Jacques and Bettendorf Teacher Doug Walter will host a press conference to respond to Mitt Romney's comments from Friday in Council Bluffs when he revealed that he wants to cut jobs for teachers, police officers and firefighters. Romney will have to answer to these comments when his in Davenport Monday.

The Quad Citians will address Mitt Romney's record of Governor, when he put his beliefs into action. In his first year in office, Romney slashed investments in local aid, eliminating 14,500 jobs for teachers, cops, librarians and others.  He took 600 police officers off the streets of Massachusetts and vetoed millions of dollars for fire-safety equipment.

 

Romney's economic plans are in stark contrast to President Obama's efforts to get more Americans back to work, putting more money into the pockets of those who are working, and creating an economy that's built to last.

 

Thursday, June 14

11:00am

 

WHAT: Iowans to respond to Mitt Romney's comments in Council Bluffs when he revealed that he wants to cut jobs for teachers, police officers and firefighters.

WHO: Police Officer Thomas Hadden

Teacher Doug Walter

Correctional Officer Tim Jacques

 

WHERE: OFA Headquarters

1706 Brady St. #205

Davenport, IA 52803

###

Ceremonial cake cutting with the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Raymond T. Odierno at Duffy Square Live from Times Square - Manhattan, New York

Scheduled for June 14 2012, 10:30 AM EDT to 12:00 PM ED

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa continues to seek a response from the Food and Drug Administration to a letter he sent to the agency Jan. 31 about the treatment of a group of employees who raised concern about certain medical devices. Grassley and Commissioner Margaret Hamburg talked on May 24, and she said the FDA expected to respond in two weeks.  Later, FDA staff told Grassley's office to expect further delays because the response is under review by an Administration official, whom they wouldn't identify further.  Grassley made the following comment on the status.

"After four months of pushing on our end, at last, the FDA commissioner herself indicated that an FDA response was on the way.  Then the FDA abruptly switched gears and said an unnamed official in the Administration is reviewing the response.  That leaves the response in limbo.  The FDA staff wouldn't give any more details.  This puts us back to square one, and it's not a good development from an Administration that was supposed to be the most transparent in history."

The text of Grassley's Jan. 31 letter to the FDA commissioner is available here.

An account of developments so far from The Washington Post follows.

 

Posted at 06:00 AM ET, 06/12/2012

Sen. Charles Grassley says he is getting no answers from FDA on staff monitoring

By Lisa Rein

Five months after asking the Food and Drug Administration to explain its secret e-mail surveillance of its employees, a prominent Senate Republican says he is getting no answers.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee with a long-standing interest in the FDA and in protecting whistleblowers, has had a longer-than-usual wait for information about the scope and justification for the agency's monitoring of the private e-mail accounts of six doctors and scientists. They had warned Congress and the White House that medical devices they were reviewing were approved or pushed toward approval despite their safety concerns.

After hearing nothing for months, Grassley said, he spoke with Commissioner Margaret Hamburg on May 24. She promised a detailed response to numerous questions raised by Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A response would be timely, she said, according to Grassley aides.

But the senator says he has heard nothing. According to an e-mail exchange between Grassley's staff and FDA officials, the agency cannot provide answers to the lawmakers because the Obama administration is still reviewing its response.

"After four months of pushing on our end, at last, the FDA commissioner herself indicated that a response was on the way," Grassley said in a statement.

"Then the FDA abruptly switched gears and said an unnamed official in the [Obama] administration is reviewing the response. This puts us back to square one, and it's not a good development from an administration that was supposed to be the most transparent in history."

FDA spokeswoman Erica Jefferson said Tuesday that the agency "will be responding directly to Senator Grassley."

Grassley demanded in January that Hamburg disclose who authorized the monitoring, how many employees were targeted and whether the agency obtained passwords to their personal e-mail accounts, allowing their communications on private computers to be intercepted. Grassley also wants to know whether the monitoring is still going on.

The Post reported in January that the scientists and doctors filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA, alleging that the government violated their constitutional privacy rights by intercepting their communications on Yahoo, Gmail and other private accounts to monitor activity they say was lawful.

The employees' communications with Congress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the inspector general's office that oversees the FDA and the Office of Special Counsel were intercepted. The special counsel, the independent federal agency that represents whistleblowers, also has opened an investigation into the monitoring.

The FDA tried but failed to have criminal charges brought against the whistleblowers for disclosing sensitive business information. The employees were fired, demoted or harassed.

Grassley has warned the FDA that interfering with a congressional inquiry is illegal.

The agency has warnings on its computers, visible when users log on, that employees have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in any data passing through or stored on the system, and that the government may intercept any such data at any time for any lawful government purpose.

But attorneys for the employees have said the warning itself is illegal because it does not ensure that anyone preparing a complaint to an agency that investigates wrongdoing has a right to keep their private communications confidential.

The plaintiffs had challenged the safety and effectiveness of devices used in detecting colon cancer, breast cancer or other medical problems. Most of the devices were approved by supervisors after the scientists recommended against approval.  The inspector general's office for the Department of Health and Human Services concluded twice that there was no evidence of criminal misconduct by the scientists.

By Lisa Rein |  06:00 AM ET, 06/12/2012

On June 20, we celebrate American Eagle Day, officially designated by Congress to recognize the cultural, historical, and ecological significance of our proud national symbol, and to raise awareness of the threats it faces. Ironically, Eagle Day comes just five days after Global Wind Day, a worldwide event "for discovering wind, its power, and the possibilities it holds for our world" (as described on the globalwindday.org website). The proximity of these events to each other is notable because, although it has the potential to be a green source of energy, wind power as it is currently being developed kills hundreds of thousands birds each year, including Bald and Golden Eagles.

Decades of conservation efforts to recover our eagles from past threats such as overhunting and poisoning by DDT are now being countered at the behest of the wind power industry, which has pressured the government to weaken eagle protections.

In 2009, so as to protect wind companies that would otherwise be in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA?the landmark law protecting these majestic birds), the government introduced a special five-year permit scheme that allows the wind power industry and others to kill eagles during the normal course of their business. Rather than being grateful for a means to operate within the law, wind companies have continuously flouted BGEPA and lobbied for a longer permit duration. Incredibly, the Fish and Wildlife Service is now poised to grant that request with proposals to extend the "take permit" length from five to 30 years, and to weaken the standards required to obtain a permit.

Allowing energy corporations to sidestep BGEPA flies in the face of sound science and common sense, disregards the high esteem that most Americans hold for these spectacular birds, and puts thousands of eagles in danger.

Wind power is a black box with regard to eagle and other bird deaths. Companies are not required to report the birds they kill, and many simply fail to make an adequate monitoring effort. Independent scientists are routinely refused access to wind power facilities, and data given to the government are often kept from the public. Some companies even falsely claim that this information is proprietary, as if they owned the public's wildlife. The birds that are publicly acknowledged as being killed therefore represent just a fraction of the true toll.

Wind power can be a valuable tool in the battle against global warming, but without transparency and accountability, and with thirty-year take permits handed out to an industry failing on both those counts, we will only see more wind development in inappropriate places and more dead eagles.

American Eagle Day serves as a reminder of how close we came to losing our nation's symbol, and should give us pause to consider how we treat it today. The federal government needs to keep our eagles flying strong by abandoning its proposal.

 

Dr. George Fenwick, 540-253-5789

President, American Bird Conservancy

4249 Loudon Avenue

The Plains, Virginia 20198

Pages