Neila Seaman, MPA
Director
Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter
3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280
Des Moines, IA  50310
[log in to unmask]
515-277-8868




>From: [log in to unmask]
>To: 
>[log in to unmask],[log in to unmask],[log in to unmask],[log in to unmask]
>Subject: Congressman Pombo, Tancredo  Propose Selling Off America's 
>Heritage
>Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:12:55 -0400
>
>
>
>
>
>Below our statement which was just sent to reporters, is the Greenwire
>story with more details from Pombo's bill.  dw
>
>
>For Immediate Release
>September 23, 2005
>
>Contact:
>David Willett, 202-675-6698
>
>
>     Congressman Pombo, Tancredo Propose Selling Off America's Heritage
>           Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director
>
>"One day after Congress Pombo's (R-CA) bill to raze the Endangered Species
>Act passed out of committee, Pombo released a draft bill to sell off
>America's National Parks and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
>America's coasts to dangerous drilling.  The irresponsible legislation
>fails to decrease oil dependence or save consumers money, but instead
>focuses bizarrely on items like selling naming rights and advertising in
>National Parks and destroying millions of acres of the heritage Americans
>cherish.   The draft bill comes on the heels of Congressman Tancredo's
>(R-CO) radical bill to sell off 15 percent of America's public land.
>
>"In one of the most stark illustrations of Congressman Pombo's divergence
>from the Republican Party's traditional values, he has proposed selling off
>for development Theodore Roosevelt Island, named after the Republican
>father of the conservation movement.
>
>"Congressman Pombo's proposal would put 15 National Parks covering millions
>of acres on the auction block for "energy or commercial development".
>These natural treasures would be sacrificed based on the arbitrary criteria
>that they receive less than 10,000 visitors a year.  These national park
>units range from small historical sites like the Frederick Law Olmstead
>National Historic site in Massachusetts to vast swaths of federal land and
>the breathtaking landscapes and wildlife of Lake Clark National Park in
>Alaska.
>
>"These public lands are icons of our natural and cultural history. They
>belong to us all and it is not up to congressmen Pombo or Tancredo to offer
>them to the highest bidder. They are an invaluable resource that have been
>protected for the benefit of future generations. Although Pombo may be
>targeting lesser-known parts of our national Park system, this is obviously
>the camel's nose under the tent.  At a time when development is encroaching
>on our open spaces and green places closer to home, Americans value the
>places set aside for their historical significance, or as a haven for
>wildlife, or beloved destinations where American families recreate.
>
>"Congressman Pombo's bill also calls for opening the Arctic Refuge and more
>of America's coasts to drilling even though it is not the answer to
>lowering our dependence on oil - and it threatens the health of our coasts
>and sensitive aquatic habitats.  For example: The Coast Guard estimates
>more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants,
>storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana. That is
>about two-thirds as much oil as spilled from the Exxon Valdez tanker in
>1989. But unlike the oil from the Valdez, which poured from a single
>source, these oil spills are scattered at sites throughout southeast
>Louisiana.
>
>"The United States can never drill its way to energy independence.  The
>United States is responsible for 25% of the world's oil consumption, and
>yet we have less than 3% of the world's oil supplies. Additionally, the
>Energy Information Administration has estimated the effect of oil drilling
>in the Arctic Refuge on the price of gasoline would be less than $0.01 per
>gallon in 2025 - that's about a penny 20 years from now.
>
>"The answer isn't on the supply side of the equation - it is on the demand
>side. Cars with better fuel economy use less gas, requiring consumers to
>buy less gas. More efficient appliances and homes use less natural gas,
>easing the demand for drilling in sensitive places.  This is not a time to
>advance a narrow political agenda of the auto and oil industry - the people
>of the United States need real solutions to save them money at the gas pump
>and curb the heat-trapping pollution that causes global warming.  There is
>a better way. By using more efficient engines, smarter transmissions, and
>better materials automakers can make all vehicles average 40 miles per
>gallon within ten years.   It's time to encourage and promote the use of
>renewable energy sources including solar and wind power.
>
>"This is just the latest attempt by Congressmen Pombo and Tancredo to
>undermine America's bedrock environmental protections and special places.
>In addition to pushing controversial measures to drill in the Arctic
>National Wildlife Refuge and off America's coasts, Pombo is also assaulting
>the Endangered Species Act, and working to weaken the National
>Environmental Policy Act which allows communities to be involved in the
>decision-making process for federally funded projects."
>
>###
>
>
>
>Greenwire
>Friday, September 23, 2005 -- 1:30 PM
>BREAKING NEWS
>1. BUDGET
>
>Pombo proposes selling 15 parks, expanding offshore leases, drilling ANWR
>Ben Geman, Dan Berman and Allison Freeman E&E Daily reporters
>OPTIONS  Print This Story E-mail This Story Related Search Draft House
>Resources Committee legislation would put 15 national parks up for sale,
>allow offshore oil and gas drilling in now-restricted waters and open the
>Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to petroleum exploration, according to a
>copy of the measure obtained by E&E Daily.
>
>A section of the 285-page bill addressing outer continental shelf drilling
>-- called the "offshore state options act of 2005" -- would allow states to
>petition for withdrawal from coastal leasing bans and in return receive
>substantial revenues from royalties. The bill also includes options for
>natural gas only leasing. The chairman of the Resources panel, California
>Republican Richard Pombo, is a vocal advocate of increasing domestic energy
>production.
>
>Under the opt-out idea, waters more than 25 miles off the coast of a
>neighboring state could be opened for gas-only leasing, while oil and gas
>leasing would be allowed if the area is more than 50 miles from a
>neighboring state. Leasing could be closer if the neighboring state
>concurs.
>
>Oil could be pumped from gas-only leases if state officials agree.
>Neighboring states would also have to agree if the lease tract is within 50
>miles of their coasts.
>
>Existing federal leasing restrictions have prevented states from "being
>sufficiently involved in decisions regarding the allowance of mineral
>resource development, and have been harmful to the national interest," the
>proposal says.
>
>The legislation would open for leasing a swath of the central Gulf of
>Mexico, the lease sale 181 area, which is coveted by industry. The bill
>would also allow states to extend the time of the executive leasing
>withdrawal within 125 miles of its coast. Pombo has negotiated with Florida
>Republican lawmakers who have considered allowing leasing in the
>farther-out 181 area in return for increased coastal protections.
>
>The bill would repeal laws that prohibit federal funds from being spent on
>offshore leasing. Congress renews offshore drilling bans each year through
>the appropriations process. Congressional moratoria and presidential
>withdrawals in place through 2012 prevent leasing on both coasts and much
>of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
>
>Brian Kennedy, a Pombo spokesman, said the language was just one option
>under consideration. "No final decisions have been made," he said today,
>calling the draft the "biggest, broadest spectrum of options" for the
>committee's budget reconciliation language. "Call it a brainstorm of all
>the possible alternatives," he added.
>
>Reconciliation has been delayed until late next month in both chambers. The
>Resources panel must find $2.4 billion in savings, which is about the
>amount the committee anticipates from ANWR leasing. Kennedy estimated the
>entire legislative package would raise about $6 billion.
>
>Drilling plan quickly comes under fire
>Environmentalists quickly criticized the drilling plan. "Any kind of
>provision that would allow states to opt-out or natural gas-only leasing
>are absolutely unacceptable. That entails weakening the moratorium," said
>the Sierra Club's Debbie Boger. "This really shows the agenda of the oil
>and gas industry. They want to say no place is off limits."
>
>But Kennedy said the language would aid domestic production to address
>economic harm caused by high natural gas prices. Several industries -- such
>as chemical manufacturers -- have argued that high natural gas are harming
>competitiveness and driving jobs overseas.
>
>"It is crippling when it comes to the job market in the U.S. and it is
>crippling when it comes to our economy," Kennedy said. "The demand for
>natural gas in the last decade or more has gone through the roof because
>natural gas is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels. The problem
>is that environmentalists who pushed to have more natural gas-fired power
>plants ... oppose producing more natural gas in America."
>
>The plan also drew a harsh response from another California lawmaker,
>Democrat Rep. Lois Capps. "Chairman Pombo's proposal means new drilling in
>areas of the U.S. where there isn't a whole lot of oil and gas and where
>tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear that they don't want
>any more drilling. This is going to be opposed by the people of California,
>Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey and other coastal states," she said in
>a statement.
>
>Proposals for selling parks, attracting commercial sponsors
>The legislation would sell Theodore Roosevelt Island in the Potomac River,
>and 15 other National Park Service properties from California to
>Massachusetts.
>
>The draft proposes removing the 91-acre Theodore Roosevelt Island from the
>park system and selling it to commercial or residential developers, as well
>as requiring land be made available for a vehicle bridge to the George
>Washington Memorial Parkway. The island is in the Potomac River between
>Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va.
>
>The draft proposes selling 15 parks "for energy or commercial development"
>if they receive fewer than 10,000 visitors a year. They are:
>
>Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Texas.
>Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, Alaska.
>Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Alaska.
>Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Alaska.
>Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site, California.
>Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona.
>Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, Massachusetts.
>Kobuk Valley National Park, Alaska.
>Lake Clark National Park, Alaska.
>Mary McLeod Bethune Council House, Washington, D.C.
>Minute Man Missile National Historic Site, South Dakota.
>Noatak National Preserve, Alaska.
>Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Monument, Pennsylvania.
>Thomas Stone National Historic Site, Maryland.
>Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, Alaska.
>Other revenue-raising proposals include mandated sales of advertisements on
>official Park Service maps and guides and on the inside and outside of all
>NPS buses, shuttles, vans, trams and passenger ferries. The Interior
>Department would also be required to solicit and sell commercial
>sponsorship of park visitors and education centers, museums, trails,
>auditoriums and theaters. An exception would be made for those already
>named after individuals.
>
>The scope of the legislation shocked park advocates. "I have no idea what
>they could be thinking putting together a proposal this extreme," said
>Craig Obey of the National Park Conservation Association. "There are
>certain people who will never be satisfied until you can sell
>advertisements and reap commercial profit from the national parks and this
>is that kind of proposal."
>
>Mining fund, marine mammal law proposals
>The draft budget reconciliation package also includes language to
>reauthorize the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Abandoned Mine Land
>Fund.
>
>The mine fund collects a tax from active mining companies for cleaning up
>abandoned mine sites and providing benefits for retired miners. Coal
>companies must currently undertake a full array of reclamation measures
>when they finish mining before they can receive their bonds back. But prior
>to the 1970s, some mining companies abandoned their mines without any
>reclamation, leaving behind a legacy of old burning slag piles, gaping
>holes in the ground and areas with acid drainage.
>
>An estimated $7 billion in unfunded coal reclamation projects remain. Of
>that, about $3 billion are for sites with significant health and safety
>problems, according to the Office of Surface Mining.
>
>AML was originally set to expire last year, but has received a series of
>short-term extensions through appropriations bills, currently through June
>2006. Part of the problem in reauthorization has been a struggle between
>Eastern and Western states in how to distribute the funds.
>
>The budget language would extend the program another 15 years and lower the
>taxes on coal companies. The taxes are currently 10 cents to 35 cents per
>ton, and the proposal would bring them down to 8 cents to 28 cents per ton.
>
>The proposal would allow a state with an approved abandoned mine program to
>retain up to 30 percent of the grants each year, as long as the money is
>kept for cleaning acid runoff.
>
>The marine-mammal proposal is similar to H.R. 2130, a bill from Fisheries
>Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) that the Resources Committee
>approved last spring. Some Democrats objected to the bill at that time.
>
>The 1972 Marine Mammals Protection Act established a moratorium, with
>certain exceptions, on "taking" marine mammals in U.S. waters and the high
>seas, as well as on importing marine mammals and marine mammal products.
>
>The reauthorization language would add several provisions to the act --
>including authorization for research grants on marine mammals and fishing
>bycatch -- and broaden its oversight for take reduction plans in fisheries.
>
>Previous MMPA reauthorization efforts have been hung up by inability of
>members to agree on a definition of "harassment" caused by Navy sonar
>equipment, among other disputes.
>
>Southern Nevada land sale plan resurfaces
>A proposal to redistribute revenues from the proceeds of Southern Nevada
>land sales has resurfaced in the draft reconciliation package.
>
>The draft would divert 40 percent of future proceeds from federal land
>sales under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to the U.S.
>Treasury, 35 percent to the state's General Education Fund, 10 percent to
>the Southern Nevada Water Authority for treatment and transmission
>infrastructure and 15 percent for Interior Department land improvement
>projects.
>
>BLM has generated nearly $2 billion from land auctions mandated by the 1998
>Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, but the land sales were
>expected to bring in only $70 million per year, according to the
>administration, and the Interior Department has not been able to spend the
>money as quickly as it comes in.
>
>"We've built every visitor center you can build in that area," said
>Interior Secretary Gale Norton on the Feb. 14 edition of E&ETV's OnPoint
>(E&E Daily, March 10)
>
>The law currently directs Interior to use the proceeds to acquire
>environmentally sensitive land and pay for capital improvement projects on
>federal areas in the state, with 5 percent of proceeds directed to the
>education fund and 10 percent to the water authority.
>
>The Bush administration in February proposed diverting 70 percent of
>revenues back to the federal treasury, leaving 5 percent for education, 10
>percent for water and 15 percent left over for the land acquisition and
>capital improvement fund. That proposal was killed after strong opposition
>from Nevada Sens. Harry Reid (D) and John Ensign (R).
>
>
>David Willett
>National Press Secretary
>Sierra Club
>(202) 675-6698 (w)
>(202) 491-6919 (m)
>[log in to unmask]
>www.sierraclub.org
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Join us at Sierra Summit 2005.  For information go to:
http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp