Today I attended Kay Granger’s Energy Expo which was, for the most part, one big commercial for the oil and gas industry and the insanity of Barnett Shale urban drilling. Granger received a score of ZERO on her 2006 environmental scorecard, worse even than the dirty, filthy Phil King who scored 12%. And why shouldn’t Granger support oil and gas over her constituents? Granger received over $77,000 last year and a career total of $473,307 from the oil and gas industry.
Let’s look at Granger’s vote on H-165-06 – The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI):
H-165-06 – The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is the nation’s premier toxic pollution right-to-know program. The program requires certain classes of industrial facilities to report releases of listed toxic chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency for public disclsoure. The TRI program encourages voluntary reductions in toxic chemical use and pollution and provides important information to the public and communities. Despite a record of sucess, the EPA issued a proposed rule in October 2005 that would enable industrial facilities to withold previously reported information, including information on some of the most dangerous and persistent toxics. In response to EPA’s proposal, Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) offered an amendment to the 2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations bill to prevent EPA from using appropriated funds to finalize the TRI rollbacks during the 2007 fiscal year. On May 18, 2006, the House approved the amendment by a vote of 231 to 187 (Roll Call #165). PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES .
Granger doesn’t want the public to know about “some of the most dangerous and persistent toxics” that are released into our environment.
Here is a picture of Granger today talking to Don Young of FWCanDO while she holds the hand of her grandson. Shame on Granger for not protecting her grandson’s environment.
Granger voted against protecting us from accidental or deliberate release of lethal chemicals:
Consumer H-504-06 – More than 15,000 chemical facilities across the country store dangerous quantities of lethal chemicals that could kill thousands of Americans in the event of an accidental or deliberate release. In fact, security experts consistently identify chemical plants as vulnerable and attractive terrorist targets. More than five years after 9/11, however, Congress has still not passed comprehensive chemical security legislation. In the summer of 2006, the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees passed comprehensive chemical security bills. The House bill would have required high-risk chemical facilities to evaulate options to replace toxic chemicals with safer and more secure alternatives. Instead of considering the respective committee bills, the industry brokered a back-room deal as part of the Homeland Security funding bill conference report that ignored the comprehensive committee bills in favor of a weak and temporary security program. During consideration of the conference report in the House, Represenateive Sabo (D-MN) moved to strengthen the weak and temporary security program. The effort failed by a vote of 221 to 186 (Roll Call #504). PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO .
I confronted Granger at the Expo about her sorry environmental voting record but she claimed the scorecards are not fair and only take selective votes. So, I asked her if she had ever voted for the environment and I gave her handler a note with my contact information so she can send me that information if it exists.