Forwarded by Jane Clark Last Wednesday, the Commerce Appropriations bill was passed containing a very nasty rider which would exempt Pacific salmon from ESA protection in Alaskan waters. The Commerce bill passed by ONLY 2 votes. Here is the list of how the IA folks voted on the Commerce bill Wednesday. Yays: Ganske, Latham, Leach, Nussle Nos: Boswell Thanks to Rep. Boswell on this one. =========================================================== The Interior Appropriations bill which was riddled with riders was debated Thursday. I don't know the votes on the Interior Bill but, Rep. Jim Leach voted FOR the bad Interior Appropriations Bill last Thursday. Can you make a few calls expressing disappointment and asking why Leach voted the way he did? We'd love to know! > Carl Zichella, Midwest Office. Calls should be made Rep. Leach. He voted to limit mining waste dumped on public lands. However, the current version of the Interior Bill contains a rider which would allow unlimited dumping and he voted FOR it!! Tell him that he should have voted against this bill and protected our nation's public lands! Call Representative Leach 202-224-3121. Hold your Representative Accountable for his Vote on Anti-Environmental Riders On Thursday night, Congress passed a spending bill for the Interior Department that shortchanges funds for protecting parks and wildlands, and undermines existing environmental protection laws. "This shameful bill fails to protect the beautiful places our families treasure, while giving special breaks to the logging companies and polluters that destroy our public lands," said Melanie Griffin, Director of the Land Protection Program. "Special interests have tacked dozens of riders onto this bill to overturn court decisions, tie land managers' hands, and undermine environmental protection laws. Rather than protecting America's public forests, canyons and streams, Congress passed a bill chock full of giveaways to the mining, timber, livestock and oil companies." The appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives on a 225-200 vote, provides the Interior Department nearly $1 billion less than the $15.048 billion requested by President Clinton and includes barely a quarter of the $1 billion the President requested for his Lands Legacy initiative to protect the threatened parkland and open spaces Americans cherish. An April poll conducted for the Sierra Club found that 78 percent of voters support the billion-dollar Lands Legacy program. Last week, President Clinton promised to veto this bill unless Congress adequately funded the Lands Legacy program and removed the harmful riders. On October 13, he said "let me be clear, if the Interior bill lands on my desk looking like it does now, I will give it a good environmental response -- I will send it straight back to the recycling bin." In the face of the President's veto threat, 200 members of Congress voted against the bill--a healthy veto-proof margin--which means that the fate of next years funding for our nation's natural resource programs as well as the fate of these anti-environmental riders will be decided in some end of the year omnibus budget bills. Please help keep the heat on Congress to reject anti-environmental riders and this backdoor approach to doing business. To see how your legislator voted, check out the vote on our website: www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/ Please take the time to thank those members who voted against this destructive bill and admonish those who voted for the bill. You can reach their offices by calling the Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121. ---------- > From: Jennifer E Hensley <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Fw: ROADLESS RADIO ADS > Date: Sunday, October 24, 1999 11:32 PM > > Hi everyone, > > I would appreciate it if you could take the time to make a call, e-mail > etc. about this issue to Leach expressing disapproval. I'm sorry that I > do not have more details other than the ad script. When these types of > ads are run it is extremely important that we follow up with our calls so > that legislators get the message. I'm not sure why the choice was made > to run the ads in Des Moines rather than the Quad Cities or Iowa City, > but I was not part of this plan. Please send this to anyone that might > make a call on this issue. I believe that if you go to the national > website--they have more information. Thanks, Jen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]