The Bond amendment is opposed by the: U.S. Conference of Mayors, State Water Pollution Control Administrators, Environmental Council of States, Trout, Unlimited, Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, Metropolitan Water Agencies, American River, and a host of other organizations. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League of Conservation Voters indicating its opposition to the Bond amendment and its intent to score this vote be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: League of Conservation Voters, Washington, DC, April 26, 2005. Re: S. 732 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA). Remove provisions that weaken the Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Oppose the Bond (D-MO) motion to strike stormwater mitigation funds. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental community. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and the press. LCV urges Congress to pass a balanced transportation bill that protects public health and the environment as it encourages the development of transportation options.…
James M. Jeffords: “The Bond amendment is opposed by the: U.S. Conference of Mayors, State Water Pollution Control Administrators…”
Share
More from James M. Jeffords
exactly 1 month ago I praised the Appropriations Committee's efforts to fund the State Revolving Fund for Wastewater Treatment and for Drinking Water at the highest possible levels. Today, however, I am gravely concerned about the overall…
generally when we vote, the decisions we make can be revisited within a few months or years. This year's appropriations policy can be replaced by a new one next year. Unintended consequences can be rectified, legislation fine tuned. But…
I will be brief but concise. This is not a vote about reducing mercury by 90 percent by 2009 or even 70 percent by the year 2030. That is a red herring. This is not a vote about the opponents' wildly outdated claims on the potential cost…
I regard the RFS as the first step, and one that only produces a transition fuel on our way to a more climate-friendly future.