My political philosophy seems to be an enigma to some who take for granted that I will always vote their bidding and express shock when I don’t.  Throughout my public career I have insisted that each and every issue be studied, the pros and cons weighed, and the best judgments be made on a case-by-case basis. 

That was especially true when I cast my vote just before the August recess in support of HR 4, Securing America’s Future Energy Act.  Since the vote I have heard from people, most of them from outside the Sixth Congressional District, who say I abandoned the environmental movement by supporting the President’s energy bill.  I have also had a few to call me their hero after that vote.  However, for those who have followed my career, my vote on this issue should not be a surprise. 

I have long advocated that we must strike a balance between our environmental policies and the needs of the American people.  I believe in smart growth and planned development.  On the other hand many of my constituents have long been oppressed by extreme and unfair government policies.  Many of them have been neglected and their children denied equal access to education and opportunity. They have elected me to address these issues fairly and equitably.

For months those who can least afford it have been hard hit by the energy crisis that has gripped our country.  Many have been forced to choose between paying their energy bills or buying food and other necessities.  Businesses have been forced to shut down or raise prices in order to cover the skyrocketing price of fuel.  In an effort to ease this crisis, Congress has been put in the position of making some hard choices.  Unfortunately many environmental organizations view these issues with myopia putting their concerns above the concerns of all others.

I could not support efforts to accelerate the increase in vehicles’ fuel efficiency standards because the possibility is too great that the trade off would be a double whammy for the automotive industry and would result in the loss of thousands of jobs.  My vote was to maintain the current schedule.

I supported drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) largely because representatives of working men and women and the indigenous people urged me to do so. Seventy-five percent of Alaskan’s support opening ANWR to oil exploration, and who is to tell them I know better?

Restrictions were placed on the drilling so it will only impact a minute 2,000 acres of the 17.5 million acre wilderness, an area smaller than the Columbia Metropolitan Airport in a region the size of South Carolina.  Also, I have personally visited the Alaska pipeline and witnessed the impressive technology used to protect the environment as part of that operation.  I feel confident that similar technology can protect the small footprint on this vast refuge that will be impacted by this effort.

America needs various other forms of relief, some of which are included in HR 4.  The bill encourages conservation, invests in cleaner-burning coal technologies, and funds research in recycling nuclear waste.   I applaud this start. 

No one can legitimately question my commitment to preserving our natural resources.  I have a very extensive voting history in support of the environment.  I believe, however, that our energy policy must strike an effective and efficient balance between our nation’s best interests and our citizens’ pressing needs.

#   #   #