December, 11 2013, 02:17pm EDT
House Republicans Hold Sixth Hearing Attacking Species Protection Agreement
Hearings Designed to Subvert Historic Agreement's Unprecedented Success in Reducing Backlog of Species Awaiting Endangered Species Act Protection
WASHINGTON
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) will chair a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Thursday to orchestrate yet another spurious and highly partisan attack on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for doing its job -- protecting rapidly declining species under the Endangered Species Act. The hearing will be the sixth one held to criticize an agreement between the Center and the Fish and Wildlife Service that merely requires the agency to meet its legal requirement to make prompt decisions on whether to protect hundreds of highly imperiled species, many that have been waiting decades for protection under the Act.
"Given the serious threats to our nation's wildlife and lands from climate change and habitat destruction, it's truly amazing that Representative Hastings has nothing better to do than to waste taxpayer money holding circus-like hearings over an agreement that simply requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to do its job in a timely manner and make decisions about protecting species," said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center. "This agreement is working to get America's most imperiled plants and animals protected so we can all move forward and start taking actions to address the threats these species face."
To date the Center's 2011 agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service has resulted in endangered species protection for 105 species and reduced the backlog of "candidate" species awaiting protection to 146 species, the lowest level in decades. The Endangered Species Act, which became law 40 years ago this month, requires the Service to designate a species as a candidate for listing when there is sufficient scientific information that listing is warranted, but funding is not available to complete listing process. Over the past 40 years, 24 candidate species have gone extinct while waiting for protection under the Act.
Contrary to false assertions from the right, the agreement does not cut states or industry out of the listing process for these candidate species. It simply requires Fish and Wildlife to follow procedures required by the Endangered Species Act on a reasonable timetable over the next six years -- a process that includes multiple opportunities for public comment and consultation with state governments.
"Species like the lesser prairie chicken, sage grouse and freshwater fish and mussels of the Southeast are finally on the road to recovery," said Hartl. "And we know we can save them by protecting them under the Endangered Species Act, which has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the plants and animals it protects.
"The biggest obstacle for these species continues to be Republican efforts to cut funding for endangered species and to interfere in decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service that should be based on science and not politics."
In 2011 the Republican House tried, but failed, to limit all funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service to list any species as endangered. Most recently, in July 2013, the Republican House attempted to include a policy rider that would have prevented any species from receiving protection if it was part of the Center's legal settlement with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Below are just a few examples of species that may have been easier and less costly to recover had they been listed when the science first indicated that protections under the Endangered Species Act were warranted.
Lesser Prairie Chicken
The Fish and Wildlife Service designated the lesser prairie chicken as a candidate species in 1997, a time when the species had dropped 97 percent from an historic population of approximately 2 million birds to approximately 60,000 birds. As of 2013 the population has fallen even further to only 20,000 birds or 1 percent of its historic abundance.
Mountain Yellow-legged Frog
Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first identified as a declining species by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1991. The Southern California Distinct Population Segment was listed in endangered in 2002, and the Service concluded that the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment warranted listing in 2003. By 2003 the Sierra Nevada population had been extirpated from approximately 83 percent of its range. In the ensuing decade the Sierra Nevada population has declined even further and has been extirpated from more than 92 percent of its range.
Gunnison Sage Grouse
The Gunnison sage grouse was first identified by the Service as a candidate species in 2000 due to a 75 percent reduction in population size and geographic reach from historic levels. A decade later the species range has declined even further and the grouse is now present on only 7 percent of its historic range and has seen a 93 percent reduction from its historic abundance.
Neosho Mucket
The Neosho mucket is a freshwater mussel that was formerly found in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Arkansas. The Service first identified it as a declining species in 1984 and listed it as a candidate species in 2001. The mussel has been extirpated from 832 river miles, representing 62 percent of its historic range. Since first being identified as a declining species, the mussel has been extirpated from two additional rivers systems.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular