Democrats Search for Cheney Role in Fish Kill
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, August 1, 2007 (ENS) - House Democrats held a lengthy hearing Tuesday to probe evidence that Bush administration officials improperly meddled with several decisions affecting endangered species, but they failed to find the smoking gun directly linking Vice President Dick Cheney to a controversial decision that contributed to the largest fish kill in U.S. history.
The House Resources Committee is investigating allegations of Cheney's involvement in the Klamath fish kill that surfaced in a "Washington Post" story in June. A former Interior Department official told the paper the vice president pressured the agency to maintain irrigation flows to farmers despite federal obligations to balance agricultural interests with the water needs of three endangered fish species and the tribal water rights of Native Americans.
Federal officials subsequently decided in April 2002 to divert water for farmers, reversing a past policy and ignoring the objections of federal biologists tasked with upholding the Endangered Species Act.
The diversion was in part responsible for a fish kill that left some 70,000 salmon dead near the California-Oregon border.
In 2004, the Interior Department's Inspector General investigated allegations that Karl Rove interfered with federal officials to enact the controversial decision, but found no evidence of political influence by the White House political advisor.
The investigation did not consider Cheney, an Interior official told the House Natural Resources Committee, but would have if information about his possible influence had been known at the time,
"We would have followed any tracks made available to us," said Interior's Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall, who said her office would specifically have examined Cheney's involvement and impact on Interior employees.
"In the end, we don't know what we don't know," Kendall said.
Michael Kelly, a former fisheries biologist who worked on the Klamath issue, told the committee he knew Cheney had been briefed on the plan, but had no direct evidence of any interference by the vice president.
"I was aware that President [George W.] Bush had declared he'd do everything he could to get water to the farms," Kelly told the committee, adding that he knew his superiors were being pressured to speed up assessments and tilt the science to favor the farmers.
"I naively believed that I was shielded from such pressure," said Kelly, who explained that he was pressured to endorse a revised 10 year plan for managing Klamath flows that supported diverting water from the imperiled fish species to benefit agricultural interests.
"I was essentially asked to support a conclusion that made as much sense as 1+1=3," Kelly said
The biological opinion underlying the plan was "completely bogus and illegal," said Kelly who noted that a federal court subsequently found the opinion violated the Endangered Species Act.
Committee Chairman Nick Rahall called the Klamath situation "a fiasco" and criticized Cheney and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne for not appearing before the committee.
"I will not pretend to be surprised [Cheney] declined our invitation," Rahall told colleagues. "But I am obliged to express disappointment at the difficulty we have had in trying to learn the truth and conduct basic oversight over an agency and an administration that have made secrecy and lack of accountability hallmarks of their tenure."
Republicans on the committee said Democrats were chasing a red herring.
"There was no improper political meddling in the Klamath decision-making process and independent peer reviewed science trumped all in the end," said Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington Republican.
She criticized Rahall for focusing on "loose allegations and inferences about Cheney" and for playing "an unproductive blame game."
Representative Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, also warned the hearing could unsettle ongoing negotiations by stakeholders in the Klamath.
"Anyone who is serious about a comprehensive resolution for the Klamath Basin would not have called this hearing, especially at this time," said Representative Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican. "It runs the risk of aborting a mediated settlement process that involves 26 parties in the basin who in the past would have been at the throats."
Democrats dismissed such concerns and spent much of the seven hour hearing discussing broader allegations of political interference by administration officials.
"When it comes to political interference and ethical lapses at the department, the Klamath River is just the tip of the iceberg," Rahall said, noting recent controversy surrounding the actions of former Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald.
A recent Interior Inspector General report detailed interference by MacDonald with scientific reports on a slew of endangered and threatened species, including sage grouse, prairie dogs, the California tiger salamander, and Delta smelt fish. MacDonald repeatedly pressed scientists to downplay risks to species and in several instances simply ignored their findings.
Federal judges have already rejected decisions influenced by MacDonald, including a move to downgrade protections for the endangered Santa Barbara and Sonoma salamanders.
Concern about meddling by MacDonald prompted the Fish and Wildlife Service to announce last month that it will revisit eight endangered species decisions she may have improperly influenced.
Kendall told the committee that MacDonald's actions have "cast a vast cloud over the Department's scientific integrity."
MacDonald's tenure at the agency has the potential to affect more than just the eight decisions the Interior Department has already pledged to review, Kendall added.
"Other decisions may be at risk for legal challenge simply by virtue of Ms. MacDonald's personal involvement," Kendall said.
Rahall said he has "little confidence" in the department's ability to impartially review MacDonald's influence.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall said his agency could be trusted to make decisions based on science, not politics.
"Neither I nor the Interior Department will tolerate instances in which scientific soundness and integrity have been compromised," he told the committee.
But Rahall remained unconvinced.
He said, "I find it difficult to see how we can trust any decision made in an agency that has, time and again, betrayed its own career scientists, repeatedly failed to hold its appointees to ethical standards and so callously disregarded its mission for the sake of political gain."
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)