A Scandal That's Business As Usual
While we wait to hear what's going to happen today regarding a possible indictment of Rep. Tom Delay, I wanted to look at the kind of every day scandal that is the hallmark of this Congress, but because it's "business as usual" gets little attention.
Our case study involves Rep. Richard Pombo who heads the House Resources Committee. He's about to introduce a bill that, according The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (a watchdog group of 427 park service veterans of national park management experience) would sell off about one out of every four acres in the National Park system, including 16 national parks.
Industries that deal in federally owned natural resources have a major interest in this gambit. They want to ensure that they can use federal land and extract resources at the best prices possible. This means that ranchers, farmers, timber, mining and oil and gas interests are keenly aware of anything that Rep. Pombo does. Funny, then, to note that among Pombo's top 10 campaign contributors since he was elected, are crop production, real estate, dairy, oil and gas, agricultural services, livestock, forestry and other farming interests.
This is the outrage that is the hallmark of this Congress.
This kind of sleaze isn't completely unexpected from Pombo. He's cited in the recent report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as one of the most corrupt members of the Congress.
So what else has he done besides conduct the legislative business of his committee on behalf of his contributors?
Pombo supported legislation that personally benefited his family. According to the press, aides to Pombo pressed the Department of the Interior to suspend environmental guidelines, opposed by the wind-power industry, without disclosing that Pombo's family had a substantial financial stake in wind energy. The guidelines, issued in 2003, sought to reduce the number of birds killed by the spinning blades of wind turbines. His parents own a 300 acre ranch and have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-power turbines on their land over the last 17 years, much more than they receive from cattle on that land. (Contra Costa Times, 4/7/05)
Pombo used campaign funds to pay family members. Pombo paid his wife and brother $357,325 from his political fund over the last four years for duties listed as bookkeeping, fundraising, consulting and other unspecified services. (Los Angeles Times, 4/14/05)
Pombo issued a report that downplayed the risk of mercury contamination in water. Pombo said, "After an exhaustive review of all the science surrounding the mercury debate, it is clear that some special-interest groups are crying wolf." According to the report, written by the GOP staff of the House Resources Committee, mercury levels in fish have remained constant or declined slightly since the 1970s. They claim that there is no link between mercury from coal-burning power plants and levels of mercury in fish, something that has been scientifically established. (The FDA has warned that high levels of mercury in some fish can pose a hazard for children and for women pregnant or nursing.) The EPA estimated that about 8 percent of American women of childbearing age have enough mercury in their blood to put a fetus at risk. (Associated Press, 2/16/05) Not surprisingly, Pombo has received more than $310,000 in campaign contributions from the energy interests. (Political Money Line)
AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
I don't even know where to begin with this, other than, you're correct -- this is Republican Business As Usual.
I don't know why more elected Democrats don't rail about this, and why so many in our country either remain ignorant or choose not to concern themselves with the all out assualt on our environment that is happening. All in the name of profits for energy companies.
Other than giving lots of my money to Greenpeace and the NRDC, I'm at a loss for what more to do.
September 28, 2005 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately it is typical Republican crap. So, what to do? Give money to a candidate running against him and support causes that try to stop this garbage in Congress. The other thing is to support organizations that educate the huge number of non-voters how much their lack of involvement in the political process is hurting them and the country. It is our government, too many neglect it and look what happens.
September 28, 2005 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a decent chance that he's vulnerable. His district is gerrymandered and majority Republican, but it's not nearly as big a Republican majority as it was. Rising housing prices in the core Bay Area have caused more people to buy houses in the exurbs beyond the East Bay hills, and that's changing the district's demographics.
If Pombo gets a reasonably strong challenger, and if he continues to pull stunts like this, and if it's possible to tie him to an unpopular Republican President, we have a chance to kick him out.
September 28, 2005 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
For more on the epidemic of GOP corruption, cronyism and patronage, see:
"Banana Republicans."
September 28, 2005 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what you can do. gove money to his opponent. Big money, if you can. He is going to be targeted by the DCCC and progressive groups. There are many volunteers just one CD over from him willing to take him down. Check at Act Blue for info on his challenger. You can even give to a fund that helps recurit a good challenger, but I believe he may already have one.
September 28, 2005 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I mention on the DCDL blog, this is similar to a proposal Pombo made last year to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure to sell off the 1002 portion of the Arctic Reserve to pay for highways in his district.
Apparently, he likes the idea of selling key environmental properties to finance pet projects.
September 28, 2005 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 28, 2005 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sale of lands also makes me think that the Administration is trying to bump up revenues in the short term w/ the sales proceeds so they look good, financially. Any lease arrangement would leave a continuous lease revenue stream to future administrations.
The cynical part of me is that the sale of national park land would also cut some of the costs of maintaining/operating the park land. Another financial win for this Administration that is already strangling the parks financially.
Lastly allowing private interests to buy or even lease park land I believe also changes the environmental laws that apply. This Administration is in the process of lessening the environmental laws w/in park land so the lesser rules inside plus moving some land outside park control is a double environmental whammy.
September 28, 2005 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had noticed this latest insult as well on Carl Pope's blog (Sierra Club), which his latest entry reads like a Stephen King novel, unfortunately none of it is fiction.
What can we do to get more of the public educated about Republicans doing "the wrong thing"?
Meanwhile, I got an email from NRDC Action Fund regarding Exxon/Mobil's funding $315,000 to the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has released a recent report arguing that it is "socially efficient and more economic" to adapt to global warming than to take measures to stop it.
"The NCPA is one of many organizations that has benefited from the $15 million ExxonMobil has contributed to such groups to undermine mainstream scientific findings and confuse the public."
So don't be so quick to believe those "greenwashing" TV commercials showing energy companies to be environmental. It seems BP/Arco may be the most honest of the energy companies, although I can't back that up with facts as I havn't researched, it seems to me that I don't hear complaints about them as with other energy companies.
By the way, it should be no surprise that we see mergers of energy industry companies, and also record setting energy company profits at the same time. Think oligopoly.
September 28, 2005 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's good advice. But part of my ARGH! is that this problem is so much bigger than just Pombo. It's the entire Republican apparatus. It's the idea that corporations are allowed to rewrite our environmental laws.
But, to your point, yes I'll give money to his opponent. That's a great idea. Thank you!
September 28, 2005 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The basic problem with railing against Republican graft in Congress is that the general public has a high tolerance for indignit action (unless, of course, it involves oral sex).
"Both sides do it," I've heard time and time again..."the Democrats weren't any different when they were in power." Discussion of scale is usually fruitless.
When it comes to raping the National Park System, I hold out some small hope that the general public can be rallied based on their personal experiences in the parks. Yellowstone is a lot closer to people's experience than ANWR.
Although dollars to donuts the park system land proposed to be sold off is inaccessible to Gulfstreams (and thereby unviewed by most visitors to National Parks).
September 28, 2005 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The day the Government sells national park land, will be the day I start passing notes to Al Queda, via Al Jazeera I guess as the starting point, to help them formulate the next Republican National Convention as a target.
September 28, 2005 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
<span class="Apple-style-span">Business as usual is right. The Bush administration recently weakened the Roadless Rule -- another change to environmental law that the benefiting industry had a hand in. The Roadless Rule once made it illegal for any roads, powerlines, or industrial activity to take place in the 58.5 million acres of roadless areas in National Forests across the country. Now, the new rule allows states to petition for how they want to manage their lands, and gives them until Sept. 2006 to do so.</span>
<span class="Apple-style-span">In Idaho, the new rule has already allowed J.R. Simplot, a major phosphate mining company, to enter the Sage Creek Roadless Area and drill 25 exploratory holes. In a recent news release, Simplot actually congratulated its governmental affairs department, who worked with other Simplot employees and the Idaho congressional delegation to help make the changes possible. Phosphate mining in Idaho is open-pit, an extremely invasive and damaging method of extraction. Once actual mining begins in this area, the land will be unrecognizable -- the wildlife displaced, vegetation cleared, and waters nearby tainted by selenium, phosphate mining's toxic byproduct. </span>
<span class="Apple-style-span">Sage Creek is the FIRST and currently the ONLY Roadless Area to be affected by the overturned Roadless Rule. But you can be certain there will be many other pristine areas lost if we do not let our state leaders know that we are concerned. </span>
<span class="Apple-style-span">To learn more about this issue and what you can do to help, visit </span><span class="Apple-style-span">http://www.thephosphaterisk.com</span>
September 29, 2005 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding your consideration of leasing certain National Park Service lands, I have to ask, what would be the incentive of those who would hold the leases -- why would they want the land? I submit that the leased land would move from it's public purposes to something other, something advantageous to private interests. Public lands belong to the public and are to be managed for the public. Furthermore, overseeing leases and trying to keep the leaseholders in compliance with preservation and integrity of the resource would be, in itself, a great burden to NPS staff.
September 29, 2005 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where I lack knowledge is the definitions that apply to federal lands - e.g., how national park lands are treated today vs. other land that may be federal and not national park. I would appreciate someone w/ expertise to enlighten us.
September 29, 2005 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink