Environment is a top priority

CHRIS COX

A recent item in the Pilot (“Low scores for legislators,” Oct. 28)

reported on the latest vote ratings from the League of Conservation

Voters. As one who has been endorsed in the past by the California

League of Conservation Voters, I’m disappointed that the national

League this year omitted several important environmental votes from

their rating because they were bipartisan, and included several votes

that had little to do with the environment but seem intended to

benefit Democrats in an election year.

To achieve its ratings, the league scored only 11 votes, and only

five of those were bills. I’d like to explain the votes that were

rated, so readers can make up their own minds.

* The Energy Policy Act, for which I voted, contained $2 billion

to promote the conversion to hydrogen fuel cell cars; tax credits and

deductions for clean vehicles; $300 million for alternative fuels,

fuel cells and clean diesel buses; tax credits for solar power and

solar water heaters; financial incentives for renewable and

alternative fuels such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal;

funding for energy efficiency programs in public buildings, schools

and hospitals; and expansion of the Energy Star program, to promote

energy-efficient products. The bill was opposed by the League and

many Democrats because it also treats nuclear power as a viable

option for the future. I strongly supported the bill because it will

make America less dependent on foreign oil.

* I also voted for H.R. 4517, which would revitalize and clean up

defunct refineries in areas suffering job losses. The League opposed

it because oil is a fossil fuel, and they believe we should not be

investing in new refinery capacity.

* H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act,

would make it easier to establish clean, renewable energy production

on federal lands. The League opposed the bill because the licensing

process for siting windmills or solar power facilities would be

speeded up, rather than subjected to a lengthy public comment

procedure. I voted yes because we urgently need new electricity

generating capacity, and clean energy is the way to go.

* I voted for H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act, which

would have required a study of the environmental effects of ethanol

-- of vital importance, because the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) has determined that using ethanol would impair our ability to

meet federal ozone and particulate matter standards. The League

opposed the bill because it also authorized the emergency use of

regular gasoline in any state in the case of a severe supply

disruption caused by terrorism or other reasons.

* League of Conservation Voters opposed H.R. 4663, the Spending

Control Act, which would have reformed the badly-broken budget

process to control excessive and wasteful spending. This was not an

environmental bill by any stretch. But it is a personal priority that

I have been championing for years. Surely, responsible stewardship of

the environment can be consistent with controlling runaway deficit

spending.

Two other of the 11 votes scored by the League also were not

environmental votes at all: They were, respectively, the House Budget

Resolution -- the League wants even higher levels of spending than

the significant increases in this year’s budget; and a Democratic

amendment to the Budget Resolution, which would have loosened

restraints not just on environmental spending, but all spending in

the federal budget.

Working for cleaner air, cleaner water and an improved environment

has been a top priority for me in Congress. Here are just some of the

environmental issues the League didn’t score:

* In the last three years, I’ve secured $99 million for

environmental protection in Orange County, including the restoration

here of Upper Newport Bay, one of California’s largest coastal

wetlands and home to a number of threatened and endangered species.

* With U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), I’ve authored legislation

endorsed by respected environmental groups, such as the Natural

Resources Defense Council, to promote zero-emission hydrogen fuel

cell automobiles.

* I’ve been the lead sponsor of the effort -- endorsed by the

Sierra Club, Public Interest Research Group, Friends of the Earth and

other environmentalists -- to let California use cleaner-burning

gasoline than the federal Clean Air Act requires for the rest of the

nation.

* I voted for the Green Chemistry Act (H.R. 3970), which subjects

the chemical industry to greater oversight and promotes the

development of more environmentally benign commercial chemicals.

Thankfully, other environmental scorecards have avoided the

partisanship that has afflicted this year’s League’s ratings. The

2004 environmental scorecard produced by San Diego State University,

for instance, rates me as a “Silver Medalist” for my environmental

votes in the current Congress.

The Pilot’s readers deserve to know that environmental protection

has been, and will remain, a top priority for me in Congress.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Rep. Christopher Cox represents the 48th

District, which includes Newport Beach.