$1.5 billion in emergency fiscal 2005 funding for medical services provided by the Veterans Affairs Administration. [HR 2361, Vote 168, 6/29/05] XXXX Voted Against Giving States the Power to Regulate LNG in Their Own Backyards. In 2005, XXXX voted to kill an amendment to the Energy Bill that would prevent facilities located onshore or in State waters for the importation of liquefied natural gas from foreign countries or the exportation of natural gas to foreign countries without the approval of the Governor of the state where the facility is located. [Vote 146, 6/21/05] XXXX Supported $2 Billion for Tax-Exempt Environmentally Friendly Construction Projects. In 2004, XXXX voted for an amendment to authorize $2 billion for “tax-exempt bonds for environmentally friendly construction projects.” [S 1637, Vote 84, 5/5/04; National Journal’s Congress Daily, 05/06/04] XXXX Voted Against Increasing Spending On Environmental Programs By $12.4 Billion. In 2003, XXXX voted against an amendment that would increase spending on environmental and conservation programs by $1.1 billion in FY 2004 and $12.4 billion over 10 years. [Vote 96, 3/25/03] XXXX Voted Against Increasing Environmental Protections and Oversight Over Energy Projects on Native American Reservations. In 2003, XXXX voted against an amendment that would increase oversight of energy projects on Indian reservations. The amendment would strike controversial language from the comprehensive energy bill’s (S.14) American Indian title, which would open millions of acres of tribal lands to oil and gas development. The amendment would expand the timeframe for the Interior secretary to review Indian energy projects, make the environmental review process more similar to standards under the National Environmental Policy Act while maintaining tribal supremacy, and strike a provision limiting who can petition the Interior secretary to review Indian energy projects. [Vote 219, 6/11/03; Environment and Energy Daily, 6/12/03] XXXX Voted Against Providing Greater Cover For U.S. Public Health And Environmental Laws From Legal Challenges By Foreign Investors. In 2002, XXXX voted against providing greater cover for U.S. public health and environmental laws from legal challenges by foreign investors. The Kerry amendment McConnell voted to table would make it more difficult for foreign trading partners to prevail in trade disputes claiming U.S. health or environmental laws constituted a trade barrier. Kerry's amendment stemmed from a lawsuit being pursued by Canada's Methanex against the ban on methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) use in gasoline. Methanex, the world's largest producer of methanol -- which is a chief component of MTBE -- claimed $970 million in compensation from the US government under NAFTA, which protected foreign investors when they invest in member countries Canada, Mexico, and the US. Opponents said Kerry's amendment would encourage foreign governments to retaliate against US companies. [HR 3009, Vote 121, 5/21/02; Environment and Energy Daily, 5/22/02; Oil Daily, 5/22/02] XXXX Voted Against Requiring Parties to Fast-Track Trade Agreements to Uphold Basic Labor and Environmental Standards. In 2002, XXXX voted against requiring parties to trade pact agreements considered under fast-track procedures to uphold their domestic labor and environmental standards, under penalty of trade remedy laws. The amendment that McConnell opposed also said that countries enforcing international environmental agreements should be protected from trade-related penalties. [HR 3009, Vote 113, 5/15/02; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 5/15/02] XXXX Voted Against Allowing Retaliation on Trading Partners Based On Labor And Environmental Standards. In 2002, XXXX voted against allowing retaliation against trading partners based on labor and environmental standards. The amendment McConnell voted to table would allow retaliation against a trading partner for exercising their right to set domestic standards for labor and the environment. [HR 3009, Vote 112, 5/15/02] XXXX Voted Against Prohibiting $14 Billion In Energy Tax Incentives Until Revenue Offsets Were Made. In 2002, XXXX voted against prohibiting any of the approximately $14 billion in the energy bill’s tax incentives, until new tax hikes or spending cuts were enacted to offset the revenue loss that would come from that $14 billion in tax relief. Major tax breaks in the Senate bill included $4.4 billion for oil and gas producers, $3.2 billion for electric utilities that develop clean coal technologies and for nuclear power plants, $4 billion to encourage energy 128