|
||||
Breaking News from America's Progressive Community... Latest Releases
Making news?
|
||||
| SEPTEMBER
16, 1998 2:20 PM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Defenders of Wildlife Ken Goldman, 202-682-9400, ext. 221, or Bill Snape, 202-682-9400, ext. 232 |
||||
| Environmentalists Decry Senate Leadership Attempt to Gut Endangered Species Act Using Rider Tactic | ||||
| WASHINGTON
- September 16 - Conservationists warned today that the Clinton administration's campaign
against anti-environmental riders could be gravely harmed by proposals to add the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) reauthorization (S. 1180) to the Interior Appropriations
spending bill. The rewrite is expected to be offered by Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) as a rider on the FY 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. S. 1180, the Kempthorne version of the ESA reauthorization has been supported by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, but the White House has not yet taken a position on the bill or possible rider. "The environment could well be the first clear victim of the Lewinsky scandal," said Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen, "and the irony is that the actions of the Secretary of Interior threaten to bring that about." Schlickeisen warned that if the Secretary of Interior supports the Kempthorne bill as a rider, it will harm White House attempts to oppose the use of riders attached to other bills as a means of pushing through controversial, anti-environmental legislation. "This is a bill that deserves full floor debate, not to be slipped through without public scrutiny at a time when the attention of the White House and the public is focused on other matters. "The fact is that conservation, scientific, and religious groups do not support the Kempthorne bill, and the Secretary knows that. The support for this bill comes from anti-environmental segments of the timber, oil and gas industries," Schlickeisen said. Schlickeisen outlined multiple severe problems that the conservation community has with the Kempthorne rider as proposed, including that it would: -- codify the administration's controversial "no surprises" policy; -- weaken the Endangered Species Act's vitally important provision requiring federal agencies to avoid actions that jeopardize the recovery of endangered species; and -- impede the development of recovery plans by requiring costly and burdensome economic analyses. -0- |
||||
