Lindsey Graham on Environment Republican Sr Senator; previously Representative (SC-3)

Manage forest underbrush better, to avoid raging wildfires

GRAHAM: Well, #1, my heart goes out to the people who lost their homes These are historically large wildfires in California. But we do have a forest management problem all over the country we need to address. But California will receive the money they need. But going forward, we need to look at some of the underlying causes of these fires and it's just not California we need to look at better forest management in terms of federal lands all over the country.

Q: So you agree with the sentiment, but, perhaps, not the tone?

GRAHAM: Yeah. This has been a debate for a while about underbrush clearing in federally owned lands, but now is not time to talk about cutting off money. With all due respect we're going to help our friends in California. They need help.

Climate change is real, but don't make a religion of it

I would like to clean up the air and water, become more energy independence, create jobs. I'm for offshore drilling. I'm for finding oil and gas that we own. I'm for coal, I'm for clean coal, I'm for natural gas but I would like a lower carbon economy over time. Clean up the air and create jobs in the process.

Green diesel regulations cost $367 per truck per year

A trade publication, Fleet Owner, tallied the costs: "About $1,800 to $3,000 was added to the base cost of a Class 8 truck [any vehicle above 33,000lb GVWR] in 2002 to meet the first round of emissions regulations. For 2007, an extra $5,000 to $10,000 got tacked on." By 2010, that meant roughly $13,500 to $23,000 extra per truck to satisfy the bureaucrats.

As a result of the new rules, fleet maintenance costs increased an extra $367 on average per truck, per year. And that's when the truck was new.

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

Allow longer than 10 years to rebuild depleted fisheries.

Congressional Summary:

• Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require fishery management plans, amendments, or regulations for overfished fisheries to specify a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the fishery that is as short as practicable (under current law, as short as possible).
• Modifies the exceptions to the requirement that [currently states that the rebuilding] period not exceed ten years [to allow a longer period].
• Requires consideration, in evaluating progress to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, of factors other than commercial and recreational fishing.

Co-sponsor`s explanation: (Rep. Walter B. Jones, Dec. 16, 2011): H.R. 3061 would allow the 10-year time period for rebuilding fisheries to be extended under certain common-sense circumstances. In allowing such flexibility, the bill would provide for timely restoration of healthy fisheries while also preventing fishermen from being put out of business because of the rigid, arbitrary timelines contained in the Magnuson Act.

Opponents` explanation Pew Environmental Group, April 7, 2009, www.endoverfishing.org): This bill is designed to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the nation`s primary law governing management of US ocean fish. This bill would:

• Threaten recovery, long-term sustainability and forego economic benefits of healthy, rebuilt fish populations;
• Abandon congressional intent requiring federal fishery managers to rebuild depleted fish populations as quickly as possible;
• Allow federal fishery managers to avoid making tough decisions by claiming that the health of depleted fish populations is beyond their control; and
• Allow federal fishery managers to continue overexploiting a vulnerable fish population, if it is caught with other populations of healthier fish.

Rated 60% by HSLF, indicating a mixed voting record on animal welfare.

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we`re counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

Loosen restrictions on predator control in Alaska.

Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska`s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.

Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):

• President Trump signed H.J. Res. 69, overturning the rule that banned `predator control` on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska unless `based on sound science in response to a conservation concern.`
• Any rule mentioning `sound science` is in trouble under a Trump administration.
• So what kinds of practices will the Trump administration now allow on our federal wildlife refuges? Activities that include shooting or trapping wolves while in their dens with pups, or hunting for grizzly bears from airplanes.
• It`s all about ensuring a maximum yield of prey species like elk, moose, and caribou for the real apex predator: humans. So if having more elk requires killing wolf pups in their dens, then so be it.
• The Obama administration`s rule (which Trump revoked) never tried to stop all hunting. Subsistence hunting was still allowed. What`s changed is that the predators on federal wildlife refuges are now under the control of the state of Alaska. And that makes them prey.