Just so everyone knows, even though this is not an environmental plank(as
such):  Mr. Gluba is Pro-Life not Pro-Choice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Neff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Questionnaire from Bill Gluba


>
> In a message dated 7/14/04 3:51:46 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << This is the letter and response to federal questionnaire from Bill
Gluba,
>
> running for Congressional District 1 against Jim Nussle. The Eagle View
>
> Group voted to endorse Bill Gluba so the Chapter should consider whether
or
>
> not to endorse Mr. Gluba. If the ExCom does, then national will have to
>
> consider endorsement, also.
>
>
> 14 July 2004
>
>
> Enclosed please find my candidate questionnaire for the Sierra Club.  As a
>
> long-time and active member of the Sierra Club and its political PAC, I
>
> would like to formally request your endorsement for my campaign for United
>
> States Congress.
>
>
> When I am elected to Congress, I look forward to supporting legislation to
>
> provide our generation and our future generations with clean air, water
and
>
> soil.  However, I need your help for this to happen.  I would also like to
>
> formally request $5,000 from your federal PAC to my campaign.  Please make
>
> the check payable to Friends of Bill Gluba, PO Box 2205, Davenport, IA
>
> 52809.  If you have any questions regarding my questionnaire or my
campaign,
>
> please feel free to contact me at 563-459-6558.
>
>
> Thank you for your support and interest in my campaign for Congress.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Bill Gluba
>
> Democratic Candidate for Congress
>
> 1st Congressional District of Iowa
>
>
> P.S.  Together, we can build a better country!
>
> ============================================
>
> Sierra Club Candidate Questionnaire
>
> Bill Gluba for Congress
>
>
> ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
>
> 1.  What has been your greatest environmental achievement?
>
>
> In State Senate, co-sponsored the 1st can deposit bill in Iowa.
>
>
> 2.  What top three environmental issues would you become actively involved
>
> with once elected to Congress?
>
>
> The three issues would be our dependence on foreign oil, clean water, and
>
> companies that ship jobs overseas with little or no environmental
>
> regulations in third world countries.
>
>
> 3.  Are there any issues where you find the pro-environment/Sierra Club
>
> position troubling?  If so, which issue?
>
>
> No problems that I know of.
>
>
> PROTECTING THE NATURAL HERITAGE OF OUR PUBLIC LANDS
>
> 4.  America's National Forests and other federal public lands are owned
and
>
> enjoyed by the American people.  Unfortunately, these lands have long
>
> suffered from money losing, taxpayer subsidized commercial logging
program.
>
>
> Qa.  Will you support a bill ending subsidies and phasing out the
commercial
>
> logging program in our National Forests?  Why or Why not?
>
>
> I will support a bill ending subsidies and phasing out the commercial
>
> logging program because the destruction of our National Forests should not
>
> come at the burden of the taxpayers.
>
>
> Qb.  Will you support legislation such as the National Forest Protection
and
>
> Restoration Act, which focuses on protecting and restoring National
Forests?
>
>
> YES!!!
>
>
> 5.  The National Academy of Sciences and the Supreme Court have identified
>
> habitat protection as critical to restoring viable populations of
threatened
>
> species of wildlife and plants.
>
>
> Q.  What do you think the federal role should be in protecting habitat,
>
> including critical habitat as defined under the Endangered Species Act?
>
>
> The federal government has a moral responsibility to protecting and
>
> preserving our ecological system by any means possible.
>
>
> 6.  Special designations, such as Wilderness Areas and National Parks, are
>
> also critically important for protecting habitat and for public
recreation.
>
>
> Qa.  Will you support significant additions to the National Wilderness
>
> Preservation System, specifically, designating more than 9 million acres
of
>
> wilderness in Utah, or classifying the coastal plain of the Artic National
>
> Wildlife Refuge as wilderness?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Qb.  Would you vote against all bills and amendments authorizing drilling
>
> for oil in the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge?
>
>
> Absolutely!
>
>
> PROTECTING OUR AIR QUALITY
>
> 7.  The Bush Administration has recently weakened the Clean Air Act's New
>
> Source Review program, allowing factories to make substantial changes
>
> without installing modern pollution control technology.
>
>
> Q.  Do you support efforts in Congress to turn back these changes,
restoring
>
> this protection?
>
>
> Yes, if factories have the money to renovate their facility, there is no
>
> reason why a modernized pollution control system should not be apart of
the
>
> renovation.
>
>
> 8.  Pollution from power plants is a serious problem for communities
around
>
> the country.  Several legislative proposals address this issue, including
>
> the Bush Administration's deceptively titled "Clear Skies" initiative,
which
>
> undermines several key Clean Air Act protections, substituting a
"pollution
>
> trading" scheme.
>
>
> Q.  Will you oppose Clear Skies, and support efforts to clean up power
>
> plants without weakening the Clean Air Act?  What alternative measures
would
>
> you propose?
>
>
> I oppose the "Clear Skies" initiative that is turning back the clock on
>
> environmental regulations.  As for new measures, I would have to study the
>
> Clean Air Act in further detail to determine what measures I would
propose.
>
>
> STOPPING SPRAWL
>
> 9.  Since 1991's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),
>
> federal transportation legislation has underscored the importance of
>
> transportation choices including public transit and bicycle/pedestrian
>
> improvements, recognizing that transportation is not simply about roads.
>
> This legislation has also included air quality mitigation measures,
>
> beautification, and more.  These bills have enjoyed strong bipartisan
>
> support.
>
>
> Q.  Will you oppose transportation legislation if it does not, at minimum,
>
> meet the percentage investment in public transportation as 1998's TEA-21
or
>
> if it severs the links between transportation projects and air quality?
>
> What standards would you consider reasonable?
>
>
> All legislation should meet at least the minimum previous standards.
>
>
> 10.  Bills currently before Congress would weaken the National
Environmental
>
> Policy Act (NEPA) by diminishing the public's ability to participate in
>
> transportation planning processes and by limiting environmental-impact
>
> reviews.
>
>
> Q.  Will you oppose this or similar legislation, either in transportation
>
> reauthorization or as stand alone bills?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> PROTECTING OUR WATER QUALITY
>
> 11.  The Bush administration issued guidance and proposed rulemaking that
>
> changes and limits the definition of "waters of the United States" under
the
>
> Clean Water Act to exclude from protection many wetlands, intermittent
>
> streams, small lakes and ponds.  Many states would be left without a
federal
>
> backstop for protecting their waters.
>
>
> Qa.  Will you support a bill that restores the original definition of
>
> "waters of the United States" that has been in place since the 1970's?
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> Qb.  Will you support reducing the subsidies to large livestock operations
>
> under the Farm Bill's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) so
>
> that the money can be spent on real environmental improvements rather than
>
> on subsidies for expanding poor waste management practices like lagoons
and
>
> sprayfields?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Qc. Will you oppose efforts that would give large industrial livestock
>
> operations immunity from the Clean Air Act and Superfund in exchange for
>
> simply having the EPA collect air emissions data from some Confined Animal
>
> Feeding Operations (CAFOs)?  Please be specific.
>
>
> Yes.  Industrial livestock operations should not be held to different
>
> standards than everyone else.  Air emissions data from select areas is not
>
> sufficient enough.
>
>
> SUPERFUND CLEANUP
>
> 12.  One of every four people in the United States lives within four miles
>
> of a toxic waste site.  To pay for the cleanup of more than 1,200 national
>
> priority toxic waste sites, Congress authorized polluter pays fees, which
>
> were put into a fund known as the Superfund.  The fees sunset in 1995 and,
>
> as a result, the fund will run out of money before the end of 2003.
>
>
> Q.  Will you support legislation that restores the original 'polluter
pays'
>
> fees and ensures that tax payers do not pay the bulk of the cleanup costs?
>
> What percentage of the cost of clean up do you believe polluters should
pay?
>
>
> I fully support polluter pays fees.  Polluters should pay in proportion of
>
> how much damage they have caused to the environment.  That payment should
>
> not have to come at the burden of the taxpayers.
>
>
> CURBING GLOBAL WARMING
>
> 13.  The United States is the world's largest emitter of the greenhouse
gas
>
> carbon dioxide, with transportation accounting for nearly one third of all
>
> U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.  Improving fuel economy of our cars and
>
> trucks is the biggest single step we can take to curb global warming and
>
> protect sensitive areas from oil drilling.  Additionally, producing more
>
> electricity from clean, renewable sources such as wind solar power will
also
>
> help cut greenhouse gas emissions.
>
>
> Qa.  If elected will you support increasing miles per gallon standards
>
> (known as corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards) for cars, SUV's, and
>
> light trucks to a 40mpg average?
>
>
> Yes, and perhaps an even higher standard.
>
>
> Qb.  Will you support a law to mandate that at least 20% of our
electricity
>
> come from clean, renewable sources by 2020?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Qc.  What other measures do you believe Congress should take to curb
global
>
> warming?
>
>
> We should have less dependence on foreign oil and more dependence on
>
> domestic forms of energy and renewable sources.  This is a matter of not
>
> only environment, but also for homeland security and jobs/economic
purposes.
>
>
> SLOWING GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH
>
> 14.  The magnitude of increased human activity pollutes and diminishes
fresh
>
> water and clean air, adversely contributes to global climate change,
further
>
> jeopardizes threatened and endangered species, and erodes the health and
>
> quality of life on earth.  One of the most comprehensive ways to address
>
> rapid population growth and better protect the environment is to ensure
that
>
> families everywhere have access to quality voluntary family planning and
>
> reproductive health care.
>
>
> Qa.  Do you support a funding increase in international and domestic
family
>
> planning programs?  Why or why not?
>
>
> Because I am not too familiar with these programs I cannot say if I would
>
> support or oppose funding increases in this area.
>
>
> Qb.  Will you oppose restrictions placed on this funding, such as the
global
>
> gag rule?
>
>
> Again, because I am not too familiar with these programs I cannot say if I
>
> would support or oppose restrictions in this area.
>
>
> Qc.  Will you support the Equity in Prescription Insurance and
Contraceptive
>
> Coverage Act, which requires insurance companies that cover prescriptions
to
>
> cover prescriptive contraceptives?
>
>
> Probably not.
>
>
> HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
>
> 15.  At this time of heightened concern about international issues, U.S.
>
> companies are informal ambassadors of our country around the world.
>
> However, American companies have too often been implicated in human rights
>
> abuses, environmental destruction and labor rights violations.  U.S.
>
> corporations have no legally binding obligations to disclose specific
>
> environmental and labor information about their offshore operations as
they
>
> must in order to operate within the U.S.
>
>
> Q.  Will you support legislation requiring U.S. based multinational
>
> corporations to disclose basic information on their human rights, labor
and
>
> environmental practices much in the same way they disclose domestic
>
> information?
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE TRADE
>
> 16.  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade
>
> Organization (WTO) have been used to weaken environmental protection in
the
>
> United States and abroad.  The downward pressure on environmental, health
>
> and safety standards could increase with completion of the Free Trade Area
>
> of the Americas (FTAA) and the Doha Round of WTO talks.  Regrettably,
>
> Congress cannot exercise its normal constitutional powers as a check and
>
> balance on the executive with respect to trade agreements because
fast-track
>
> procedures deny Congress its normal power to make amendments or to conduct
a
>
> thorough debate.
>
>
> Qa.  Will you support reform of current and future trade rules so that
they
>
> no longer can undermine environmental, health and safety protections?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Qb.  Will you support an alternative to fast-track procedures that would
>
> allow Congress to fully debate and amend trade agreements?  What type of
>
> agreements would you support?
>
>
> I would support alternatives to fast track procedures.  I would support
>
> agreements that give the American worker a fair deal in trade agreement,
>
> contrary to what is happening under this administration.
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp