Judd Gregg on the environment

Granny D, the next senator from New Hampshire, writes:

Judd Gregg on the Environment: Not a pretty picture!

Judd Gregg enjoys a reputation for being good on the environment, earned largely by voting on a few local issues and sending money home for some environmental programs, when he in fact always votes with the Bush Administration when his vote is needed. In this way he undermines the large scale health of our environment while he looks good locally. Since 1993, he has one of the two worst environmental records among the senators from New England, according to the League of Conservation Voters. In 2002, he received a 53 percent rating from LCV. In 2001, he received a 25 percent rating. In 2000, he received a 14 percent rating.

He has voted to ruthlessly rollback clean air and clean water laws. As a Bush Yes Man, he voted against protecting our water from arsenic, radon, and microbes, voting to prohibit the EPA from regulating arsenic in our drinking water. Amazingly he voted against increased funding for rural clean drinking water and even personally introduced legislation to gut the Safe Drinking Water Act, and he voted to make the Act's standards voluntary.

Judd Gregg supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The oil and gas industry has contributed more than $33,000 to Judd Gregg's federal campaigns since 1991.

He voted to allow logging, mining, and road building in national forests without regard to the impact of these activities on wildlife. He voted to eliminate most toxic chemicals from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which is the list of toxic chemicals that industries are required to include in reporting their pollution. This action was done at the urging of polluting industries, led by BASF.

Gregg voted against the fast-response clean-up of rivers contaminated with DDT, PCBs, dioxins, metals, and other pollutants.

He voted against $100 million in funding to clean brownfield toxic sites, and most remarkably, voted against making polluters pay to clean up Superfund sites. The oil and gas and chemical industries have contributed more than $43,000 to Judd Gregg's federal campaigns since 1991.

He actually co-sponsored legislation to weaken the Superfund program by exempting cleanups from meeting the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act standards, letting polluters off the hook for cleanup costs and ending the "polluter pays" principle. It also would have allowed polluters to put fences around polluted sites instead of requiring Superfund sites to be fully cleaned, and would have limited the listing of new Superfund sites and shifted cleanup costs to local and state governments.

He voted against increasing funding to repair and refurbish infrastructure at New Hampshire's (and the nation's) national parks and forests, even though the National Park System and national forests are important to New Hampshire's economy.

He voted for a moratorium on the new listing of species on the Endangered Species List.

He voted against tax incentives to promote energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources, making the U.S. increasingly dependent on foreign oil. Despite his pro-hydrogen statement in his debate with Granny D, he voted against encouraging the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

He voted against provisions to ensure that countries entering into free-trade agreements with the United States do not violate environmental provisions in the agreements.

Here are the specific details of his votes: http://grannyd.org/issueenvironment.htm