Scorecard/newscorecard.lcv.org › sites › scorecard.lcv.org › files ›...

2002N A T I O N A L Environmental Scorecard

NOVEMBER 2002 FINAL 107TH CONGRESS

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS • LCV.ORG

*Organizations are shown for identification purposes only

LCV BOARD OF DIRECTORS*

LCV POLITICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE*

LCV POLITICAL COMMITTEE*

Bill Roberts, ChairExecutive DirectorBeldon Fund

John H. AdamsExecutive DirectorNatural Resources Defense Council

Brent Blackwelder (Honorary)PresidentFriends of the Earth

Everett (Brownie) CarsonExecutive DirectorNational Resources Council of Maine

Wade Greene, SecretaryPhilanthropic AdvisorRockefeller Financial Services

Paul W. Hansen

John (Jay) A. Harris (Honorary)Changing Horizons Charitable Trust

Denis HayesPresidentThe Bullitt Foundation

Rampa R. HormelPresidentGlobal Environment Project Institute

John Hunting (Honorary)ChairBeldon Fund

Gene Karpinski, Vice ChairExecutive DirectorU.S. Public Interest Research Group

Tom KiernanPresidentNational Parks Conservation Association

Fred KruppExecutive DirectorEnvironmental Defense

Martha MarksPresidentRepublicans for Environmental Protection

Winsome McIntosh, TreasurerPresidentPhilanthropic Strategies, Inc.

William H. Meadows IIIPresidentThe Wilderness Society

John D. PodestaVisiting Professor of LawGeorgetown University Law Center

Lana PollackPresidentMichigan Environmental Council

Marie W. RidderBoard MemberTrust for Public Lands

Larry RockefellerAttorneyNatural Resources Defense Council

Theodore Roosevelt IVManaging DirectorLehman Brothers

Donald K. RossM&R Strategic Services

Rodger O. SchlickeisenPresidentDefenders of Wildlife

Debbie SeaseNational Legislative DirectorSierra Club

Peggy ShepardExecutive DirectorWest Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.

S. Bruce Smart, Jr.Former Undersecretary of Commerce

John H. Watts (Honorary)Fischer, Francis, Trees & Watts, Inc.

Joanne Witty, Vice ChairBrooklyn Bridge ParkDevelopment Corporation

Ed ZuckermanExecutive DirectorWashington Conservation Voters

Bill Meadows, ChairThe Wilderness Society

Steve CochranEnvironmental Defense Fund

Gene KarpinskiU.S. Public Interest Research Group

Tom KiernanNational Parks Conservation Association

Steve MoyerTrout Unlimited

Rodger SchlickeisenDefenders of Wildlife

Debbie SeaseSierra Club

Greg WetstoneNatural Resources Defense Council

Anna AurilioU.S. Public Interest Research Group

Dan BeckerSierra Club

Jake CaldwellNational Wildlife Federation

Alys CampaigneNatural Resources Defense Council

David ConradNational Wildlife Federation

Lee CrockettMarine Fish Conservation Network

Robert DeweyDefenders of Wildlife

Russell DunnNational Audubon Society

Blake EarlyAmerican Lung Association

Marty HaydenEarthjustice Legal Defense Fund

Patricia KenworthyNational Environmental Trust

Anne KeysEnvironmental Working Group

Linda LanceThe Wilderness Society

Craig LasherPopulation Action International

Steve MallochTrout Unlimited

Wayne PacelleThe Humane Society of the U.S.

Tom PelikanScenic America, Republicans for EnvironmentalProtection

Cindy ShoganAlaska Wilderness League

Lexi ShultzMineral Policy Center

Randy SnodgrassWorld Wildlife Fund

Elizabeth ThompsonEnvironmental Defense

C O N T E N T S

1. ANALYSIS

President’s Message 2

Overview of theFinal Session of the107th Congress 4

Regional and StateVoting Summary andAnalysis 8

2. SENATE SCORES

Vote Descriptions 13

Senate Votes 19

3. HOUSE SCORES

Vote Descriptions 25

House Votes 28

4. INDEX

Members of theFinal Session of the107th Congress 45

LCV MembershipInformation 48

The nonprofit League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has

published a National Environmental Scorecard every Con-

gress since 1970, the year it was founded by leaders of the

environmental movement following the first Earth Day. LCV is the po-

litical voice for more than nine million members of environmental and

conservation organizations and the only organization working full-time

to educate citizens about the environmental voting records of Members

of Congress.

This edition of the National Environmental Scorecard provides objec-

tive, factual information about the environmental voting records of all

Members of the second session of the 107th Congress. This Scorecard

represents the consensus of experts from 22 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 environmental health and safety protections, resource conserva-

tion, and spending for environmental programs. The votes included in

this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on pro-

tecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are work-

ing for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the

Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on

which no recorded votes occurred.

Dedicated environmentalists and national leaders volunteered their

time to identify and research crucial votes. We extend special thanks to

our Board of Directors, Political Committee, and Political Advisory

Committee for their valuable input.

Edited by Louis Bayard, Ryan Cree, Keith Gaby, Betsy Loyless, Tim Mahoney, ScottStoermer and Mary Minette. Design by Sarah McPhie, Cutting Edge Design. Pub-lished October 2002 by the League of Conservation Voters®. All rights reserved. Foradditional copies or information about joining the League, please contact LCV, 1920L Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202) 785-8683; Fax:(202) 835-0491; Email: [email protected]. Full Scorecard information is also available onthe World Wide Web at www.lcv.org.

2 2002 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV

From LCV’s President

L CV’s 2002 National Environmental Scorecard tells the story of two very different legislative bod-

ies and highlights one very big problem. The House majority leaders did all they could to push

proposals to weaken environmental protections and exploit natural resources at any cost, while

Senate majority leaders tried to stop it. Any hope for real environmental progress was lost in the process.

The narrow political division in the House and Senate were reflected in scores of the members. Just short

of a majority of the House—209 representatives—cast a pro-environment Scorecard vote at least half the

time. But even this large bipartisan group could not overcome the discipline imposed by the two most pow-

erful congressmen who vote in the House, Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay,

both of whom earned zeroes on the Scorecard (by tradition, the Speaker of the House rarely votes). Leaders

like Henry Waxman, Dick Gephardt, Nick Rahall, Ed Markey and Nancy Pelosi led a pro-environment al-

liance that included 30 perfect scores in the House this congress. Unfortunately, there were also 57 zeroes.

The absence of a pro-environment majority in the House was clearly reflected in a stagnant legislative

agenda on environmental issues. Environmental leaders in the House attempted to increase funding to help

farmers conserve their land and protect water quality and failed. They fought against trade promotion author-

ity legislation that could undermine our environmental laws and failed. And they battled to protect the right

of citizens to know about environmental hazards in their communities. But committed anti-environmental-

ists in the House majority leadership blocked them at every turn. The lone success on this year’s House

Scorecard was passage of a ban on coastal drilling in California.

On the brighter side, pro-environment forces finally broke the majority barrier in the Senate in 2002, as

45 Democratic, 5 Republican and 1 Independent senators scored 50 percent or higher—up from 47 in 2000.

The upward surge was driven by freshman senators who averaged 62 percent on the 107th Congress Scorecard,

well above the 41 percent 106th Congress average of those whom they replaced. But heightened scores unfor-

tunately did not translate into immediate legislative progress—except, importantly, we were able to halt the

worst environmental threats. It took all the effort of environmental leaders like John Kerry, Joe Lieberman,

Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Susan Collins and Paul Wellstone (our late environmental hero whose lifetime

LCV score was the highest in the Senate) to stop the most egregious elements of President Bush’s energy plan,

like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. When progress was attempted, the fragility of the pro-

2002 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 3

1. A

NA

LYS

IS

Deb CallahanPresident

environment majority was apparent, as efforts to improve fuel economy standards, energy efficiency and re-

newable energy fell by the legislative wayside.

In a year in which the environmental community expended most of their time and resources to stop anti-

environment measures from succeeding, one thing became increasingly clear: bipartisan cooperation to pro-

tect more than thirty years of environmental progress is quickly disappearing. Common ground for environ-

mental progress is often impossible to find when both parties feel there is little room for error in their battles

to gain control of Congress.

It is sometimes difficult to remember, but it was not always this way. A solid coalition of Democrats and

moderate Republicans passed landmark pieces of environmental legislation like the Clean Air Act, Clean

Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act by wide majorities, reflecting the priority the American

people place on protecting our natural resources. That priority, especially among younger Americans, is stron-

ger than ever. A recent National Public Radio poll asked Americans how they’d rate the strength of their com-

mitment to the environment on a scale of 1 to 10 – and more than half put themselves at 8 or higher. Unfor-

tunately, as reflected in the 2002 Scorecard, the commitment of most members of Congress to environmental

protection falls well below that of the people they were elected to represent.

When Republican, Democratic and independent candidates recognize that environmental progress is also

smart electoral politics – regardless of the party to which you happen to belong – our Congress, our environ-

ment, and our nation will be much better off. Until then, LCV’s National Environmental Scorecard will con-

tinue to track our progress and serve as a roadmap for how far we still need to go.


2002 Overview

T he story of the 107th Congress began with Republican Party control of both houses of Congress and the White

House—all by the narrowest of margins—for the first time since 1954. Political winds shifted abruptly after

Senator James Jeffords (I-VT) announced that he was leaving the Republican Party to become an Independent

and would caucus with the Democrats. While the Senate reorganized under Democratic leadership, the House moved aggres-

sively to pass the Bush Administration’s special interest driven energy plan over bitter environmental opposition. But then the

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks turned America upside down and radically changed government priorities. The economic

downturn, along with the corporate scandals that followed, also strongly impacted both congressional priorities and public

sentiment. The second half of the 107th Congress reflects these sea changes in a focus on legislation relating to national se-

curity concerns and the war on terrorism. The stalled budget and appropriations process is both a result of growing concern

over the economic downturn and of differing funding and policy priorities between the House and Senate leadership. The

shift in legislative focus has also meant little movement on environmental legislation, as well as a stalemate over the widely

divergent energy legislation passed by both houses.

Finishing the Farm BillThe Senate had begun consideration of the Farm Bill in De-cember 2001 and returned to its bill early in the new year.Farm legislation, already passed by the House in 2001, is al-ways an important election year issue for farm state mem-bers. Because of the bill’s budgetary magnitude and the nowgrowing federal deficit, farm state senators were anxious topass it before the Senate considered a new budget resolutionthat was based on new, and less favorable, economic forecaststhan was last year’s budget. Several key votes on conserva-tion funding and programs resulted in a Senate bill that wassignificantly different than the House-passed bill, and re-ceived guarded support from the environmental community(see box). However, these conservation gains largely disap-peared in negotiations with the House and the conferencereport that passed both houses in May did not gain the sup-port of environmentalists.

A Budget ImpasseAs a general rule, an early legislative priority for Congress isits budget for the following fiscal year; however, in 2002 thegrowing federal deficit made this a painful process. TheHouse passed a stringent budget resolution in March thatwould have resulted in major cuts in domestic spending, butthe Senate was unable to come to agreement on a budget. Asa result, the Appropriations Committees were forced to be-gin their work on funding for the federal government in fis-cal year 2003 without spending guidelines.

The Senate Turns to EnergyIn March 2002, after reaching a stalemate on the budget, theSenate took up its energy legislation. Throughout the previ-ous fall, the Senate Democratic leadership repelled severalefforts by Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), the Senate’sforemost proponent of Arctic drilling, and Senator JamesInhofe (R-OK) to attach the House-passed energy bill tounrelated legislation on the Senate floor in their push to linkenergy policy to national security concerns. Senate MajorityLeader Tom Daschle (D-SD) promised to bring an energybill to the floor at the earliest opportunity in 2002.

Senator Daschle chose, however, to use a leadership pre-rogative to take a bill drafted by Energy and Natural Re-sources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) directly to thefloor, bypassing committee. Substantively, the bill was muchmore favorable to environmental community priorities thanwas the House-passed bill or the Bush administration’s energyplan. The Senate bill did not include provisions to develop oilon the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge inAlaska. It included a provision drafted by Senators John Kerry(D-MA) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) that would have raisedCorporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for carsand light trucks to 36 mpg by 2013. The tax provisions,crafted by Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), struck amore conservation-oriented balance between tax incentives forenergy conservation, alternative fuels and traditional energyproduction, where the House bill tilted primarily toward tra-ditional producers such as coal, oil and nuclear energy.


1. A

NA

LYS

ISNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop astandard. Despite strong environmental opposition, theLevin-Bond proposal passed with support from the adminis-tration, the automobile manufacturers and the United AutoWorkers (Senate vote 2). A second surprise amendment fromSenator Zell Miller (D-GA) exempting all pickup trucks fromany increase in fuel economy requirements also passed (Senate

vote 3). Late in the floor debate onthe energy bill, Senators Tom Carper(D-DE) and Arlen Specter (R-PA)brought up yet another fuel economyamendment, this one requiring thatthe Department of Transportationimplement standards to save 1 mil-lion barrels of oil per day by 2015.This amendment also failed to pass,but with more senators supportinghigher fuel economy standards thanin either of the previous votes (Sen-ate vote 4).

Renewable EnergyAnother issue that received exten-sive floor debate early in the energyfight was renewable energy. Theoriginal energy bill contained a rela-tively modest proposal to requirethat ten percent of electricity comefrom renewable sources by 2020.Senator James Jeffords (I-VT) at-tempted to raise the bar by adding arequirement that 20 percent comefrom renewable sources by 2020(Senate vote 5). Although theJeffords amendment was defeated,several attempts to remove or re-strict the 10 percent requirement,led by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ),were also soundly defeated (Senatevote 6) and the requirement re-mained in the bill.

Drilling in the ArcticIn early April 2002, the Senate re-turned to an energy debate that hadnow consumed far more of theSenate’s floor time than anyone hadpredicted. Majority Leader Daschlethreatened to move cloture andbring the debate to a close. Withdrilling in the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge as the largest re-maining unresolved issue, and withSenators John Kerry and Joseph

FARM BILLSince the Great Depression, the federal government has established farm policiesthat attempt to stabilize the financial risks of farming from factors such as drought andcrop price fluctuations. Every four to six years, Congress debates and passes a FarmBill, the single largest series of federal programs that affect American agriculture.

Farming and ranching operations cover more than half the land in the 48 con-tiguous United States. Thus, farming has a major effect on the nation’s air, water,wetlands and wildlife habitat. Over the past two decades, farm legislation began toincorporate conservation goals, such as the protection of wetlands and grasslands,in its mix of programs. These programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program,have generally proven popular, and have been renewed and expanded in subse-quent bills. They often serve to help smaller farmers and ranchers improve farmingpractices without financial sacrifice and keep land in the family. For this reason, farmconservation programs are supported both by environmental organizations and bygroups advocating to preserve small family farms.

The debate over farm program renewal began in 2001, with the House reject-ing an amendment to increase substantially funds for conservation programs (see the2001 National Environmental Scorecard). The House bill also raised the cap oncrop subsidy payments to individual farmers to more than $600,000 from prior law,which allowed payments of up to $460,000. Statistics on subsidies under the previ-ous farm bill, publicized with great effect by the Environmental Working Group dur-ing this farm debate, indicated that crop subsidies went disproportionately to largefarmers: between 1996 and 2002, 45 percent of all such subsidies went to the larg-est 7 percent of farms. By contrast, the bill that the Senate passed in early 2002capped payments to individuals at $275,000. In addition, Senator Paul Wellstone(D-MN) offered an amendment that would have prevented funds from the Environ-mental Quality Incentives Program from going to expand or build new factory animalfarms (Senate vote 8). Although Wellstone’s original amendment did not pass, a ver-sion of his factory farm subsidy limit was agreed to by the Senate—and subsequentlyremoved by the conference committee on the bill.

The House-Senate conference committee met in the spring, accompanied byintense lobbying and deal making among the many regional and economic inter-ests. In the end, the conference tilted more toward the House bill, including a$360,000 subsidies cap and lower funding for conservation programs than waspassed by the Senate. Small farm groups and environmental organizations hadgained backing in the full House for the Senate approach, winning a motion to in-struct the House conferees to accept the Senate’s subsidy caps and conservationfunding levels in April (House vote 1). When the conference report reached theHouse floor with the higher subsidy caps these groups urged the full House of Rep-resentatives to reject the conference report and send it back to the committee toboost conservation spending and lower the subsidy caps. The effort to recommit thebill failed (House vote 2) and both houses subsequently sent the bill to PresidentBush, who signed it into law on May 13, 2002.

Fuel EconomyThe 2002 energy debate marked a turning point in the fight toincrease fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, asthe issue became the subject of extensive debate on the Senatefloor. Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Christopher Bond (R-MO) offered an amendment to remove the Kerry-HollingsCAFE provision and replace it with a weak directive to the


Lieberman (D-CT) continuing to threaten a filibuster ofany drilling amendment, the Alaskans responded with arisky tactical gambit. Senator Stevens (R-AK) proposed anamendment that would use revenue generated by oil leases inthe Arctic to fund pensions for retired steelworkers frombankrupt or troubled steel companies in an attempt to wooDemocratic senators from steel-producing states.

On April 16th, the Arctic amendments came to thefloor. The underlying amendment, offered by SenatorsMurkowski, Breaux (D-LA) and Stevens, paralleled the2001 House bill (see the 2001 National EnvironmentalScorecard) with minor changes. Senator Stevens also offeredhis amendment to fund steelworker pensions from the oilrevenues.

Democratic leaders then filed cloture petitions, a proce-dure required to cut off debate and bring the amendments toa vote. Unless the senators voted to end debate, the threat-ened filibuster could go on indefinitely and there would beno vote on either of the amendments. The first cloture vote,on the Stevens steel amendment, was overwhelminglyagainst, with all senators opposed to developing the CoastalPlain voting against cloture and several conservatives, op-posed to the steel bailout, joining them. Stevens withdrewhis amendment and the cloture vote that followed on theMurkowski-Breaux-Stevens proposal to drill in the refugealso failed by a significant margin (Senate vote 1).

The Final Days of DebateWith most of the contentious issues resolved, a cloture peti-tion for the energy bill passed easily, restricting remainingdebate and amendments. Amendments on the environmen-tal impacts of hydropower (Senate vote 15), the inclusion ofmunicipal solid waste incineration as a renewable energysource (Senate vote 10), energy efficiency standards for airconditioners and heat pumps (Senate vote 7), and manufac-turer liability for the public health and environmental im-pacts of renewable fuels (Senate vote 11) consumed littlefloor time but further weakened the energy bill. On April 25,after seven weeks of debate and thirty-six roll calls, the En-ergy Policy Act of 2002 was approved 88-11.

The Senate bill has since remained mired in conferencewith the House, whose 2001 bill diverges widely from theSenate’s. Signing an energy bill continues to be a top priorityfor the President. However, as the House and Senate re-cessed for the November elections, the negotiations re-mained stalled.

Enron and Campaign FinanceIn early spring, a growing number of corporate scandals, be-ginning with the collapse of Enron, brought new life to thedebate over the financing of political campaigns and politicalparties. Congressional investigations of Enron’s financialscandals also exposed its history of political influence built

on massive “soft money” campaign contributions to bothpolitical parties. Legislation banning soft money (see the2001 National Environmental Scorecard), stalled previouslyin the House, was taken up and passed in February. In lateMarch, Majority Leader Daschle temporarily set the energybill aside to pass the final Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingoldbill. The President signed the bill in March; it will take effectafter the November 2002 elections.

Administration Priorities and theCongressional AgendaWith split party control of the Congress and no filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, even anti-environment priori-ties pushed by the administration ended in stalemate thisyear. A Department of Defense push to gain new “nationalsecurity” exemptions from key environmental and publichealth laws, while partially successful in the House (Housevote 3), was rejected by the Senate. Conference negotiationsover the Defense bill were not yet complete at press time.The Bush administration’s push to exempt some types ofinformation concerning environmental and public healthhazards from public disclosure laws such as the Freedom ofInformation Act as part of its efforts to establish the Depart-ment of Homeland Security succeeded in the House (Housevote 7). The Senate’s bill took a more measured approach tothe disclosure issue but had not yet passed at press time.

Exceptions to this stalemate included the long foughtissue of nuclear waste disposal (see box). After years ofstalemate, President Bush designated Yucca Mountain, Ne-vada as the long-term storage site for radioactive waste fromthe nation’s nuclear energy plants. When the governor ofNevada vetoed the site, a congressional process was triggeredleading to a significant environmental setback when bothhouses passed resolutions to override the veto (House vote 6;Senate vote 12).

The administration also continued its push for “FastTrack” authority to negotiate trade agreements. An attemptby Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to amend the Fast Track billto better protect U.S. environmental laws from trade chal-lenges by foreign investors failed to pass, and the Senatepassed its bill in May 2002. After a relatively brief conference,the bill passed the House in July (House vote 8) by a narrowmargin, and the Senate in early August (Senate vote 16).

An Appropriations StandoffBoth the House and Senate began to move appropriationsbills for the 2003 fiscal year on schedule in late spring. How-ever, due to the inability of the House and Senate to come toagreement on a budget, the process quickly reached an im-passe over funding priorities that escalated as the end of fis-cal year 2002 approached in September. In a change from re-cent years, when priority environmental issues, such as thestandard for arsenic in drinking water, were debated through


1. A

NA

LYS

ISvotes on appropriationsbills, this year saw few suchfloor fights. The exceptionwas House consideration ofthe bill to fund the Depart-ment of Interior, which in-cluded debates over drillingoff of the California coast(House vote 4) and farmingleases in Oregon wildliferefuges (House vote 5). Asthe elections approached,only two of the 13 appro-priations bills had passedboth houses. The Houseand Senate passed continu-ing resolutions at 2002funding levels to keep thegovernment running whilethey returned home tocampaign.

Outlook2002 was a year of unfin-ished business. In theweeks leading up to theelections, the impasse be-tween House and Senatedeepened. The Senate’sDemocratic leadership con-tinued to push for changesto the Homeland Securitylegislation, for higher fund-ing levels for key federalprograms, and for its en-ergy bill over that passed bythe Republican-led House.Following a month of littlelegislative progress, bothhouses passed resolutionsin mid-October to fund thegovernment through theelections and made plans toreturn for a lame duck ses-sion—and to continueworking towards final reso-lution of their many unre-solved issues.

YUCCA MOUNTAINNuclear power was a big winner in the Congress of 2002. First, both the House and Senatevoted to extend the terms of the 1957 Price-Anderson Act, the law that limits the liability of theowners of nuclear power plants in the case of accidents. Without such an exemption from theliability faced by other businesses and individuals, nuclear power advocates say they wouldbe unable to afford insurance or even to obtain it. Environmental organizations and groupsthat fight excessive federal spending argue that Price-Anderson is a subsidy of unknown butpotentially gargantuan size that disguises the true cost of nuclear energy relative to conserva-tion and alternative fuels. The reauthorization was included by the Senate in its energy bill(Senate vote 13), which has not yet emerged from conference.

The second big win for the industry was passage of legislation to begin the process of build-ing a permanent disposal and storage site for 77,000 tons of the nation’s nuclear waste.

Nuclear advocates often claim that nuclear energy is a clean fuel: it does not pollute theair or generate greenhouse gases like utilities that burn coal or oil. But undermining the “cleanfuel” argument is the impact of the radioactive waste that is generated by every nuclearpower plant. Because this waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, its long term stor-age has become a major policy issue.

Congress has grappled with the issue of finding a permanent waste storage site for morethan 20 years. The site must be stable from an environmental and public health perspective.Areas with large populations not only mean larger public health dangers, but greater politi-cal muscle to resist siting.

Nuclear proponents have long had their eye on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Aside fromthe area’s low population, federal ownership, and history of nuclear testing, Yucca Mountainadvocates claim that its arid climate reduces the risk of flood, erosion and seepage and thatit is geologically stable. Opponents, including Nevada’s elected officials, disagree vehe-mently, producing numerous studies questioning the location’s long-term safety. They alsopoint out that waste must be shipped by road and rail across the country to Yucca Mountain,endangering communities in 44 states along the way. They argue that politics is pushing thedecision, that Nevada’s small population and few representatives in Congress are more im-portant to decisionmakers than an honest appraisal of the site.

On February 15, 2002, President Bush accepted the recommendation of Energy Secre-tary Spencer Abraham and officially named Yucca Mountain as the long-term waste storagesite, which triggered a formal licensing phase. When Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn (R) sub-mitted his veto on April 9th it triggered a 90-day deadline for Congress to override the veto.

Proponents of Yucca Mountain have long had a strong majority in the House of Repre-sentatives, and the full House quickly voted to override Nevada’s veto of the project. In July,despite the opposition of both Nevada senators and the influence of Majority Whip HarryReid, the resolution went to the Senate floor. The key debate and vote was on the motion toproceed to the resolution, normally a parliamentary formality. When the motion to proceedpassed 60-39, opponents knew they had lost and did not call for a recorded vote on theresolution itself, which passed by voice vote.

Nevada and other Yucca Mountain opponents are not out of options, but the hard-fought Congressional process appears ended. “Now the process moves to the federalcourts, where the playing field is level and Nevada’s factual, scientific arguments will beheard by impartial judges,” said Governor Guinn.


Voting Summary

New England 74 85(Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Rhode Island, Vermont)

Mid-Atlantic 74 65(Delaware, Maryland, NewJersey, New York, Pennsylvania,West Virginia)

Southeast 21 29(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, North Carolina,South Carolina, Tennessee,Virginia)

2002 Regional Averages

REGION SENATE HOUSE REGION SENATE HOUSE

Midwest 47 46(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Nebraska, NorthDakota, Ohio, South Dakota,Wisconsin)

Rocky Mountains/Southwest 14 27(Arizona, Colorado,Montana, New Mexico,Oklahoma, Texas, Utah,Wyoming)

West 51 59(Alaska, California, Hawaii,Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,Washington)

2002 National Averages

SENATE HOUSE

National Average 43 47Democrat 72 79Republican 13 17


1. A

NA

LYS

IS

Alabama 4 16Alaska 4 9Arizona 22 17Arkansas 18 36California 88 61Colorado 8 41Connecticut 84 79Delaware 78 64Florida 66 40Georgia 34 24Hawaii 70 86Idaho 4 2Illinois 72 51Indiana 34 33Iowa 44 43Kansas 2 20Kentucky 2 5Louisiana 20 9Maine 68 91Maryland 92 68Massachusetts 88 93Michigan 76 56Minnesota 96 65Mississippi 4 26Missouri 34 35

Montana 32 0Nebraska 14 6Nevada 64 48New Hampshire 36 41New Jersey 88 81New Mexico 36 36New York 90 72North Carolina 34 36North Dakota 56 68Ohio 6 41Oklahoma 0 7Oregon 52 75Pennsylvania 28 46Rhode Island 84 95South Carolina 38 32South Dakota 60 9Tennessee 6 31Texas 6 32Utah 4 27Vermont 86 95Virginia 8 28Washington 78 59West Virginia 68 58Wisconsin 74 68Wyoming 0 5

2002 State Averages

STATE SENATE HOUSE STATE SENATE HOUSE


Highest Senate Delegations:

107th Senate Averages

0-19% 20-39% 60-79% 80-100%

107th Senate High and Low Scores

Highest Senate Scores:

Lowest Senate Delegations:Maryland 92% • Minnesota 96% • New York 90%

California Boxer 96% Delaware Biden 96% Illinois Durbin 92%Maryland Sarbanes 96% Massachusetts Kerry 92% MinnesotaDayton 92% • Wellstone 100% Nevada Reid 92% New JerseyCorzine 96% New York Schumer 92% Rhode Island Reed 100%Vermont Leahy 96%

Alabama Sessions 4% • Shelby 4% Alaska Murkowski 0% • Stevens8% Arizona Kyl 8% Arkansas Hutchinson 4% Colorado Allard 8%• Campbell 8% Idaho Craig 4% • Crapo 4% Iowa Grassley 4%Kansas Brownback 4% • Roberts 0% Kentucky Bunning 0% •McConnell 4% Mississippi Cochran 8% • Lott 0% Missouri Bond 8%Montana Burns 8% Nebraska Hagel 0% New Mexico Domenici 8%North Carolina Helms 0% Ohio Voinovich 0% Oklahoma Inhofe 0%• Nickles 0% Pennsylvania Santorum 4% South Carolina Thurmond4% Tennessee Frist 0% Texas Gramm 8% • Hutchison 4% UtahBennett 4% • Hatch 4% Virginia Allen, G. 0% Wyoming Enzi 0% •Thomas, C. 0%

Alabama 4% • Alaska 4% • Colorado 8% • Idaho 4% • Kansas 2% •Kentucky 2% • Mississippi 4% • Ohio 6% • Oklahoma 0% •Tennessee 6% • Texas 6% • Utah 4% • Virginia 8% • Wyoming 0%

40-59%

Lowest Senate Scores:


1. A

NA

LYS

IS

107th House High and Low Scores

107th House Averages

0-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-100%

Lowest House Scores:

Lowest House Delegations:

Alabama Callahan 0% • Everett 0% • Riley 0% Arizona Hayworth 0%• Shadegg 0% • Stump 0% Arkansas Boozman 0% California Herger0% Colorado Schaffer 0% Georgia Chambliss 0% • Kingston 0%Idaho Simpson 0% Illinois Shimkus 0% Indiana Burton 0% • Buyer0% Kansas Moran, Jerry 0% • Ryun 0% • Tiahrt 0% Kentucky Fletcher0% • Lewis, R. 0% • Whitfield 0% Louisiana Baker 0% • Cooksey 0% •McCrery 0% • Tauzin 0% • Vitter 0% Michigan Knollenberg 0%Mississippi Pickering 0% • Wicker 0% Missouri Akin 0% • Blunt 0% •Graves 0% Montana Rehberg 0% Nebraska Osborne 0% • Terry 0%New Mexico Skeen 0% North Carolina Ballenger 0% Ohio Boehner0% Oklahoma Lucas, F. 0% • Sullivan 0% • Watts 0% TennesseeBryant 0% • Jenkins 0% Texas Armey 0% • Bonilla 0% • Brady, K. 0%• Combest 0% • DeLay 0% • Sessions, P. 0% • Smith, L. 0% • Thornberry0% Virginia Cantor 0% • Forbes 0% • Goodlatte 0% • Schrock 0%Washington Hastings 0% • Nethercutt 0%

Alaska 9% • Idaho 2% • Kentucky 5% • Louisiana 9% • Montana 0% •Nebraska 6% • Oklahoma 7% • South Dakota 9% • Wyoming 5%

Highest House Delegations:Maine 91% • Massachusetts 93% • Rhode Island 95% • Vermont 95%

California Eshoo 100% • Farr 100% • Honda 100% • Lee 100% •Matsui 100% • Miller, George 100% • Sanchez 100% • Solis 100% •Waters 100% Colorado DeGette 100% • Udall, M. 100% FloridaWexler 100% Illinois Jackson 100% • Schakowsky 100%Massachusetts Frank 100% • Lynch 100% • McGovern 100% •Tierney 100% Minnesota Luther 100% New Jersey Holt 100% •Pallone 100% • Rothman 100% New Mexico Udall, T. 100% NewYork Ackerman 100% • McNulty 100% • Velazquez 100% • Weiner100% Oregon Wu 100% Wisconsin Baldwin 100% • Kleczka 100%

Highest House Scores:


Rating the Leadership of Environmental Committees

SenateCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SCORE RANKING REPUBLICAN SCORE

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Harkin (IA) 84 Lugar (IN) 12

Appropriations Byrd (WV) 56 Stevens (AK) 8

Commerce, Science and Transportation Hollings (SC) 72 McCain (AZ) 36

Energy and Natural Resources Bingaman (NM) 64 Murkowski (AK) 0

Environment and Public Works Jeffords (VT) 76 Smith, R. (NH) 28

COMMITTEE LEADERS COMPARED TO PARTY AVERAGE

Senate Committee Leader Average Chairmen 70 Ranking Republican 17

Senate Party Average Democrat Average 72 Republican Average 13

HouseCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SCORE RANKING DEMOCRAT SCORE

Agriculture Combest (TX-19) 0 Stenholm (TX-17) 14

Appropriations Young, B. (FL-10) 27 Obey (WI-7) 91

Energy and Commerce Tauzin (LA-3) 0 Dingell (MI-16) 82

Resources Hansen (UT-1) 5 Rahall (WV-3) 86

Transportation and Infrastructure Young, D. (AK-AL) 9 Oberstar (MN-8) 82

COMMITTEE LEADERS COMPARED TO PARTY AVERAGE

House Committee Leader Average Chairmen 8 Ranking Democrat 71

House Party Average Republican Average 17 Democrat Average 79

Party Leaders’ Scores vs. the Rank and File

* The Speaker of the House votes at his discretion.

Leadership Average 85Party Average 79

DEMOCRATS

Gephardt (MO-3), Minority Leader 91Pelosi (CA-8), Minority Whip 95Frost (TX-24), Caucus Chairman 68


REPUBLICANS

Lott (MS), Minority Leader 0Nickles (OK), Assistant Minority Leader 0Santorum (PA), Conference Chairman 4

HouseREPUBLICANS

Hastert* (IL-14), Speaker of the House NAArmey (TX-26), Majority Leader 0DeLay (TX-22), Majority Whip 0Watts (OK-4), Conference Chairman 0


SenateDEMOCRATS

Daschle (SD), Majority Leader 68Reid (NV), Majority Whip 92Mikulski (MD), Conference Secretary 88


2. S

EN

AT

E S

CO

RE

S


2002 Senate Vote Descriptions

Public Lands & Resources

1. Arctic DrillingProtection of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wild-life Refuge is among the highest priorities for the nationalenvironmental community. The complete range of arcticand sub-arctic landscapes protected in the refuge are unique:from America’s northernmost forest, to the peaks and gla-ciers of the Brooks Range, to the rolling tundra, lagoons andbarrier islands of the coastal plain. No other conservationarea in the circumpolar north has such abundant and diversewildlife, including rare musk oxen, polar bears, grizzlies,wolves and millions of migratory birds. The refuge is alsothe annual gathering point for more than 120,000 caribou—animals central to the culture and sustenance of theGwich’in Athabaskan people of northeast Alaska and north-west Canada.

The 1.5 million acre coastal plain is often called the“biological heart” of the refuge. It is also the last 5 percent ofAlaska’s vast North Slope that is still legislatively protectedfrom exploration or development.

Multinational oil corporations that covet the coastal plainargue that drilling will help lower gasoline prices and reduceU.S. reliance on foreign oil. However, a 1998 study by the U.S.Geological Survey projects that the coastal plain would yield3.2 billion barrels of commercially recoverable oil—less thanwhat the U.S. consumes in six months—that would take atleast 10 years to bring to market. Even then, economists argue,refuge oil would do nothing to lower energy costs for consum-ers or reduce U.S. dependence on imports. By contrast, mod-est improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency would save farmore oil than the refuge could ever yield.

The potential fate of the Delaware-sized coastal plainshaped much of the debate over the Senate energy bill (S.517). In April 2002, Senators Frank Murkowski (R-AK) andTed Stevens (R-AK) introduced an amendment that wouldhave allowed President Bush to open the Arctic Refuge to oildevelopment. The amendment’s sponsors claimed it wouldlimit the scope and impact of oil drilling. In reality, theamendment (like a similar provision adopted in the House in2001) would have allowed roads, pipelines and other indus-trial facilities to be scattered across the entire coastal plainand permitted year-round oil development.

The introduction of the Murkowski-Stevens amend-ment prompted an immediate filibuster led by Senators JoeLieberman (D-CT) and John Kerry (D-MA). Stevens andMurkowski moved to end the filibuster by filing a cloturepetition, a procedure to end debate. On April 18, 2002, thepetition failed by a 46-54 vote (Senate roll call vote 71). NO

is the pro-environment vote. The Murkowski-Stevensamendment was later removed from consideration. TheHouse energy bill included a provision to drill in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge (see the 2001 National Environ-mental Scorecard). At press time the House and Senate con-ference on the energy package had not produced a final bill.

LCV considers the issue of drilling in the Arctic Na-tional Wildlife Refuge to be of such significance that wehave scored this vote twice.

Energy & Global Warming

2., 3. & 4. Fuel EconomyAmerica’s cars and light trucks consume 8 million barrels ofoil every day—an estimated 40 percent of U.S. oil consump-tion. Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 28 pounds ofcarbon dioxide, the primary contributor to global warming.American vehicles account for 20 percent of U.S. carbon di-oxide emissions—and the U.S. is the largest global warmingpolluter on the planet. The U.S. could substantially reduceboth its dependence on oil and its carbon dioxide emissionsby raising the vehicle mileage-per-gallon of new cars andlight trucks.

Under the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) stan-dards currently in place, each manufacturer’s fleet of lighttrucks, including sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans andpickup trucks, is required to meet a standard of 20.7 miles pergallon; cars must meet a 27.5 miles per gallon standard. De-spite significant technological advances, neither Congress northe Department of Transportation has significantly raisedthese CAFE standards in more than two decades. Pickuptrucks, in particular, remain among the least efficient vehicleson the road: the average pickup truck manages only 16.8 milesper gallon, while releasing more than 100 tons of carbon diox-ide into the atmosphere over its lifetime.

The Senate energy bill (S. 517) included a provision,authored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and ErnestHollings (D-SC) to increase the CAFE standard for eachmanufacturer’s fleet of cars and light trucks to 35 miles pergallon by 2013. This increase could save 2.53 million barrelsof oil a day—as much oil as the U.S. currently imports fromthe Persian Gulf—and would prevent the release of some500 million tons of carbon dioxide.

To encourage bipartisan support, Senator Kerry reacheda compromise with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) andplanned to offer it as an amendment on the Senate floor. TheKerry-McCain amendment would have raised the standardto 36 mpg by 2015, which would have saved 2 million barrels


per day by 2020. However, instead, Senators Carl Levin(D-MI) and Christopher “Kit” Bond (D-MO) introducedan amendment to strike the Kerry-Hollings provision anddirect the Department of Transportation to set a new stan-dard within 15 months. Conservationists argued that the de-partment already has this authority and has conspicuouslyfailed to exercise it. On March 13, 2002, the Senate passedthe Levin-Bond amendment by a 62-38 vote (Senate roll callvote 47). NO is the pro-environment vote.

Immediately thereafter, Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)proposed an amendment to prevent any future increase infuel economy standards for pickup trucks. After only tenminutes of debate, the Senate voted to pass the Milleramendment by a 56-44 vote (Senate roll call vote 48). NO isthe pro-environment vote.

Recognizing that the energy bill in its current form of-fered no savings in oil consumption, Senators ThomasCarper (D-DE) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) later introducedan amendment that would have required the TransportationDepartment to reduce the oil consumption of cars and lighttrucks by at least 1 million barrels per day by 2015. Whilethe amendment did not set a specific CAFE target, conser-vationists considered it an important step toward protectingAmerica’s energy security and environment. However, Sena-tor Levin moved to table (kill) the Carper amendment. OnApril 25, 2002, the Senate voted to kill the Carper-Specteramendment by a 57-42 vote (Senate roll call vote 90). NO isthe pro-environment vote. At press time the House and Sen-ate conference on the energy package had not produced a fi-nal bill.

5. & 6. Renewable Energy ResourcesDespite the availability of clean renewable energy technolo-gies—including wind, geothermal and solar power—ournation’s electric utilities continue to depend heavily on fossilfuels, which pollute the air, land and water and threaten pub-lic health. At both the state and federal level, environmental-ists have argued for a renewable portfolio standard, whichrequires a set percentage of energy production to come fromrenewable sources. Such a standard would clean the air, di-versify U.S. fuel supply, protect consumers from electricityprice shocks, and spur substantial economic development. InTexas, for instance, a renewable energy standard signed intolaw in 1999 by then-Governor George W. Bush has spurredthe development of 1,100 megawatts of wind power, created2,500 jobs and generated millions of dollars in tax revenuesand landowner royalties. Twelve other states have renewableenergy standards in place.

In its initial form, the Senate energy bill (S. 517) con-tained a provision requiring the largest investor-owned elec-tric utilities to generate at least ten percent of their electricityfrom renewable sources by 2020. During floor considerationof the bill, Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) introduced an amend-

ment to raise the standard from 10 to 20 percent—a level thatthe Department of Energy believes is both affordable and fea-sible. On March 14, 2002, the Senate defeated the Jeffordsamendment by a 29-70 vote (Senate roll call vote 50). YES isthe pro-environment vote.

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) subsequently introduced anamendment to weaken the ten percent standard by replacingit with a provision that would have required utilities to offerelectricity from renewable sources only to the extent avail-able. On March 21, 2002, the Senate defeated the Kylamendment by a 40-58 vote (Senate roll call vote 55). NO isthe pro-environment vote. At press time the House and Sen-ate conference on the energy package had not produced a fi-nal bill.

7. Energy EfficiencyAir conditioning represents a major share of peak power de-mand in urban areas on hot days—as much as 70 percent inHouston for example. Improving the efficiency of air condi-tioning can bring enormous benefits to the environment byreducing power plant emissions that cause acid rain, mercurycontamination, and climate change. Greater efficiency can sig-nificantly reduce power shortages in highly populated areas,potentially making the difference between a stable power sup-ply and an ongoing series of blackouts and brownouts.

In the closing days of the Clinton administration, theEnergy Department issued a new regulation that required a30 percent increase in the minimum energy efficiency stan-dard for central air conditioners and heat pumps—a level al-ready available in current models from every major manu-facturer. By the time President Bush entered office, thisregulation had already been finalized, but it nevertheless wasone of the rules scrutinized by the new administration for itsimpact on industry. Soon thereafter, the Department of En-ergy abandoned the rule, and proposed a new rule thatwould raise the efficiency standard by only 20 percent.

Conservationists maintain that this lower standardwould require the construction of 45 more power plants overthe next 20 years, consume another 14,500 megawatts ofelectricity, cost consumers an additional $1 billion on theirelectric bills and send an extra 2.5 million metric tons of car-bon dioxide into the atmosphere. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) opposed the lower standard and mandated a 30 percentincrease in air conditioner efficiency in the Senate energy bill(S. 517).

However, during Senate floor consideration of the bill,Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced an amendment that,in effect, struck the 30 percent increase from the bill. OnApril 25, 2002, the Senate approved the Harkin amendmentby a 52-47 vote (Senate roll call vote 89). NO is the pro-en-vironment vote. At press time the House and Senate confer-ence on the energy package had not produced a final bill.

2. S

EN

AT

E S

CO

RE

S


Pollution & Public Health

8. Factory FarmsConcentrated animal feeding operations, commonly calledfactory farms, pose a serious threat to the environment. Byconcentrating tens or hundreds of thousands of animals in asmall area, these farms generate huge quantities of animalwaste—billions of pounds of manure each day. Liquefiedanimal waste is often stored in large, leaky open-air lagoonsand sprayed on nearby fields that are too small to absorb thehigh volume of waste. As a result, the surrounding area’ssurface and groundwater may be contaminated with nitro-gen, phosphorous, salt, heavy metals, pathogens, antibioticsand hormones; and the surrounding air may be polluted byammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane. This pollution hasled to algal blooms, massive fish kills and serious threats tothe public’s health in surrounding areas.

During congressional reauthorization of the farm bill,large agribusinesses lobbied Congress to subsidize manuremanagement at factory farms. At the center of the debatewas the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),which offers agricultural producers (including livestock pro-ducers) financial and technical assistance in improving waterquality, wildlife habitat, wetlands and grazing lands.

In the previous farm bill, Congress made it clear thatEQIP funds were not to be used by factory farms for manuremanagement. However, during consideration of S. 1731, the2002 farm bill, the House and Senate agriculture committeesgreatly increased funding for the EQIP program and, at thesame time, lifted the manure management restriction for thelargest operations. Opponents of this move contended thatCongress should not subsidize large agribusinesses at theexpense of both the environment and small farmers.

Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) offered an amendmentto ensure that taxpayer dollars would not subsidize new fac-tory farms or the further concentration of existing opera-tions. His amendment also prohibited the use of taxpayerdollars to fund the construction of manure lagoons in areashighly prone to flooding. On February 6, 2002, the Senaterejected the Wellstone amendment by a 44-52 vote (Senateroll call vote 15). YES is the pro-environment vote. A scaled-back version of the amendment later passed the Senate byvoice vote. However, many of the policy provisions fromSenator Wellstone’s second amendment were removed orgreatly weakened by the House-Senate conference report,which was passed by the Senate on May 8, 2002, and signedinto law by President Bush on May 13, 2002.

9. Drinking Water ProtectionHalf of the U.S. population relies on groundwater for itsdrinking water. Contaminated groundwater is difficult, andoften impossible, to clean up. Congress recognized the im-

portance of protecting drinking water by passing the SafeDrinking Water Act.

Hydraulic fracturing is a method of increasing oil andgas yields that puts underground sources of drinking waterat risk. High-pressure injection of sand, water and toxicchemicals, including diesel fuel, into natural gas and oil wellsfractures rock formations to release greater quantities of oiland gas. This procedure is also used to extract methane gasfrom shallow coal formations that often exist within under-ground sources of drinking water. Conservationists andnearby ranchers and farmers oppose this procedure becauseit puts drinking water at risk of contamination.

In December 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled thathydraulic fracturing should be regulated under the SafeDrinking Water Act. In response, Senator Jeff Bingaman(D-NM) attempted to block the regulation of hydraulicfracturing in his first draft of the energy bill in December2001, but was prevented from doing so by Senator JimJeffords (I-VT).

During final consideration of the Senate energy bill (S.517), Senators Bingaman and Inhofe (R-OK) introduced anamendment requiring that the EPA study the effects of hy-draulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking wa-ter. Although couched as a simple study, this provisionwould block regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the in-terim, and could result in a permanent exemption from theSafe Drinking Water Act. On March 7, 2002, the Senate ap-proved the Bingaman-Inhofe amendment by a 78-21 vote(Senate roll call vote 43). NO is the pro-environment vote.At press time the House and Senate conference on the en-ergy package had not produced a final bill.

10. Municipal SolidWaste IncinerationGarbage incineration is one of our nation’s costliest andmost dangerous means of generating energy, releasing largequantities of such toxic chemicals as lead and dioxin into theatmosphere. In addition, according to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, garbage incinerators in 2000 emitted 2.2tons of mercury—nearly 20 percent of the nation’s mercuryemissions—polluting groundwater and surface water, con-taminating fish populations, and significantly raising the riskof neurological damage and birth defects in humans.

The Senate energy bill (S. 517) contained a provision re-quiring the largest investor-owned electric utilities to gener-ate at least ten percent of their electricity from renewablesources by 2020. Recognizing this provision’s potential eco-nomic boon, advocates for the garbage incineration industryargued that incinerators should be defined as a renewableenergy source. Conservationists countered that such a defi-nition would impede our nation’s progress toward clean re-newable energy sources like wind and solar power.


During Senate debate over the energy bill (S. 517), Sena-tor Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) introduced an amendment tomake clear that garbage incineration is not a renewable en-ergy source. In response, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) in-troduced an amendment that would have specifically in-cluded incineration as a renewable energy source. SenatorGraham later withdrew his amendment, but on April 24,2002, Senator Bingaman moved to table the Fitzgeraldamendment. The Senate approved the motion by a 50-46vote (Senate roll call vote 84). The pro-environment vote wasNO. The vote left the Senate energy bill with no clear defini-tion of renewable energy sources. At press time the Houseand Senate conference on the energy package had not pro-duced a final bill.

11. Renewable Fuel Liability WaiverConservationists support the use of renewable energy, butthey also recognize that some renewable fuels may have seri-ous environmental impacts. For instance, ETBE (ethyl ter-tiary butyl ether), a gas additive made from ethanol, maycontaminate groundwater in the same manner as MTBE(methyl tertiary butyl ether). In addition, ethanol may in-hibit the breakdown of other, more toxic components ingasoline and increase the spread of benzene and other hy-drocarbons around leaking storage tanks.

The Senate energy bill (S. 517) exempted renewable fuelsand renewable fuel additives from federal and state product li-ability protections. Under this loophole, manufacturers andrefiners could not be held accountable for the harm caused bytheir defective products. Taxpayers and affected communitieswould be forced to bear the costs of the adverse health andenvironmental impacts of renewable fuels. Conservationistsargued that this provision would eliminate an important disin-centive to pollute and set a dangerous precedent for environ-mental policy, both at the state and federal levels.

During Senate floor consideration of the energy bill, Sena-tors Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in-troduced an amendment to close this loophole by ensuring thatrenewable fuels are not subject to a lesser liability standard thanother motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives. On April 25, 2002,Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a motion to table theBoxer amendment. The motion passed by a 57-42 vote (Senateroll call vote 87). NO is the pro-environment vote. The finalSenate bill included the liability waiver for renewable fuels. Atpress time the House and Senate conference on the energy pack-age had not produced a final bill.

12. Yucca MountainRadioactive waste is not just one of the world’s most danger-ous substances, it is one of the most difficult to safely store.In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, di-recting the Department of Energy to develop two deep-burial sites for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste from

the nation’s nuclear facilities. In 1987, Congress amendedthe act to designate Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northof Las Vegas, Nevada, as the sole site for consideration as apermanent waste repository.

Yucca Mountain is poorly suited to permanent nuclearwaste storage. Thirty-three earthquake faults intersect thearea and the proposed storage site is situated above an aqui-fer that provides drinking water to a nearby community.Moreover, because most of the nation’s nuclear waste is lo-cated on or near the East Coast, transporting the waste toYucca Mountain would involve extensive truck, rail andbarge shipments: an estimated 105,000 shipments of irradi-ated fuel would be moved across the country over a period ofnearly 40 years.

A report issued in December 2001 by the General Ac-counting Office identified 293 “significant unresolved tech-nical” issues pertaining to the Yucca Mountain site. A Janu-ary 2002 letter by the Nuclear Waste Technical ReviewBoard found that the “technical basis” for the EnergyDepartment’s performance estimates for Yucca Mountainwas “weak to moderate.” Nevertheless, in February 2002,Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham officially recommendedthe Yucca Mountain site to President Bush, who approvedthe recommendation and referred it to Congress.

The Governor of Nevada vetoed the site recommenda-tion in early April, but on July 9, 2002, the Senate, by a 60-39 vote, moved to override Nevada’s veto and proceed withthe repository (Senate roll call vote 167). NO is the pro-envi-ronment vote. The House had already passed a similar reso-lution (House vote 6). With congressional approval in hand,the Energy Department is now preparing to apply to theNuclear Regulatory Commission for a license for the YuccaMountain facility.

13. Nuclear Accident LiabilityEnacted in 1957 as a short term measure to spur nuclearpower plant development, the Price-Anderson Act contin-ues to give nuclear plant operators an unfair subsidy by lim-iting their liability to the public in the event of a nuclear ac-cident. The act caps liability at $9.4 billion and provides nomechanism for paying damages above that amount. A worst-case accident at a U.S. nuclear plant could result in damagesof more than $500 billion, according to a government-com-missioned study by the Sandia National Laboratory. How-ever, Price-Anderson’s liability limitation would leave vic-tims of a nuclear accident with no guarantee of completecompensation. Moreover, the act fully indemnifies EnergyDepartment contractors, which means that taxpayers wouldbear the full cost of accidents that take place at contractors’facilities, at third-party facilities where contractors are work-ing, and on the road when contractors are hauling nuclearmaterials or waste.

2. S

EN

AT

E S

CO

RE

S


By mitigating investment risk and dramatically reduc-ing the cost of liability insurance, the Price-Anderson Act isa major taxpayer subsidy of the nuclear industry, with anannual value estimated at anywhere from $366 million to$3.4 billion. This subsidy distorts power prices and gives thenuclear power industry an artificial advantage over otherpower sources.

The Price-Anderson Act expired on August 1, 2002, al-though some provisions remained in force for pre-existingnuclear facilities. On March 7, 2002, during consideration ofthe Senate energy bill (S. 517), Senator George Voinovich(R-OH) offered an amendment to reauthorize the act. Con-servationists opposed reauthorization, on the grounds that itis a subsidy for a new generation of nuclear power plants andan incentive to produce more nuclear waste.

On March 7, 2002, the Senate passed the Voinovichamendment by a 78-21 vote (Senate roll call vote 42). NO isthe pro-environment vote. The House likewise reauthorizedPrice-Anderson in a separate unanimous consent motion,passed in 2001. At press time the House and Senate confer-ence on the energy package had not produced a final bill.

Water & Wetlands

14. Water ConservationFreshwater species depend on adequate stream flows to helpmaintain dissolved oxygen levels and cool water tempera-tures and to find food and spawning habitat. In many areas,however, agriculture and other land-use practices have dis-rupted stream flows, especially in western states. Partly as aresult, freshwater species are disappearing at a rate five timesfaster than North America’s mammals and birds.

To help address this problem, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) added a program to the 2002 farm bill (S. 1731) thatwould have helped endangered fish and other freshwater spe-cies by allowing the sale, lease or transfer of water rights on1.1 million acres of land as part of the 36-million-acre Con-servation Reserve Program (CRP). The Reid program wouldhave given states $375 million to lease or buy water rights, andwould also have given more money to CRP farmers who optto lease their water rights to the state. Opponents of the newprogram claimed that it would interfere with the authority ofindividual states. However, the program would have specifi-cally guaranteed both state water law protections and state ap-proval of all water purchases and leases.

During floor consideration of S. 1731, Senator MikeCrapo (R-ID) introduced an amendment to strike the Reidwater conservation provisions from the bill. Senator Reidthen moved to table (kill) Crapo’s amendment. On February12, 2002, the Senate voted to table the Crapo amendment bya 55-45 vote (Senate roll call vote 24). YES is the pro-envi-ronment vote. The farm bill that emerged from House-Sen-

ate conference did not include Reid’s original language butdid allocate $300 million over the next five years to waterconservation, to be administered under the EnvironmentalQuality Incentives Program (EQIP). This money, however,was not specifically earmarked for enhancing stream flows.The House-Senate conference report on the farm bill waspassed by the Senate on May 8, 2002, and signed into law byPresident Bush on May 13, 2002.

15. Dam RelicensingHydropower dams can have highly detrimental impacts onrivers and the species that depend upon them. Blocking thepassage of fish, causing wildly fluctuating water flows andleaving some rivers completely dry, hydropower dams havedegraded some of our nation’s most remarkable rivers andhave left dozens of fish stocks at risk of extinction.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) isresponsible for issuing 30- to 50-year operating licenses to non-federal dams. Over the next 10 years, the licenses for more than400 dams will expire, directly affecting 130 rivers nationwidefor many years to come. Since many of these dams were origi-nally licensed before the advent of modern environmental laws,FERC’s relicensing process is an important vehicle for conserv-ing and restoring some of America’s most significant rivers, atrelatively small cost to dam operators and operators. Accordingto FERC’s own analysis, the last ten years of relicensing havebrought more than 250 dams into compliance with modern en-vironmental laws and standards, while reducing the nation’s to-tal energy generation by less than 0.01 percent.

Of the 2,000 non-federal dams regulated by FERC,more than 400 are situated entirely or in part on federallands. Consequently, Native American tribes and land man-agement agencies like the U.S. Forest Service are authorizedto place conditions on these projects. For all dams regulatedby FERC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service may require dam owners toconstruct and operate fish passageways that enable fish tomove safely up and downstream.

Dam operators and owners often criticize the hydro-power relicensing process as costly, time-consuming andoverly complex. In drafting the Senate energy bill (S. 517),Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) included provisions thatwould improve the efficiency of the process while maintain-ing environmental protections. But during floor debate ofthe energy bill, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and LarryCraig (R-ID) went further, offering an amendment to re-place the Bingaman language with provisions that would sig-nificantly weaken the environmental requirements for fishpassage and federal lands protection. The amendment wouldplace onerous, redundant procedural hurdles in front of fed-eral natural resource agencies and grant dam owners an ex-clusive right to appeal if they deem environmental compli-ance too expensive.


In an effort to block the Nelson-Craig amendment,Senator Bingaman offered a substitute amendment to hisoriginal language, directing FERC to study ways of makingthe relicensing process more efficient. Senator Nelson thenmoved to table (kill) the substitute Bingaman amendment.On April 24, 2002, the Senate approved the Nelson motionby a vote of 54-43 (Senate roll call vote 81). NO is the pro-environment vote. The Nelson-Craig amendment was thenamended by Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) to significantlyreduce the time available to federal agencies to review damlicensing applications. The Nelson-Craig amendment, in-cluding the Smith language, later passed by voice vote. Atpress time the House and Senate conference on the energypackage had not produced a final bill.

International

16. Trade and EnvironmentAs trade has become an increasingly vital component of theglobal economy, important policy decisions on such issues asmarine species conservation and sustainable forestry prac-tices are increasingly being made in the context of interna-tional trade agreements and institutions. These bodies oftenfail to incorporate environmental concerns in their decisionsand have, in some cases, rejected environmental and publichealth protections as barriers to trade.

This issue came to a head during the House debate over“Fast Track” trade legislation. Fast Track authority allowsthe President to negotiate trade agreements with expedited

procedures for approval or disapproval by Congress. Con-gress agrees to consider the trade agreements under a proce-dure with mandatory deadlines, no amendments, limited de-bate, and an up-or-down vote. In exchange, Congress ispermitted to set negotiating objectives, conditions for ap-proving agreements, and guidelines for any changes to do-mestic law.

Fast Track authority lapsed in 1994. The environmentalcommunity supports a consensus-based Fast Track authoritythat would encourage environmental protection and guardagainst weakening environmental standards while still pro-moting economic growth. Such was not the case with theTrade Act of 2002 (H.R. 3009), which was opposed by con-servationists for failing to address key environmental provi-sions in a meaningful way and for failing to encourage real en-vironmental progress and cooperation with trading partners.During debate of the bill, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) pro-posed an amendment that would have prevented future tradeagreements from including provisions identical to Chapter 11of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).These provisions grant foreign corporations broad powers tosue U.S. taxpayers for damages if U.S. environmental, healthor land protection laws interfere with the corporations’ busi-nesses. However the Kerry amendment failed to pass by a voteof 55-41 on May 21, 2002. The bill passed the Senate, and inAugust emerged from conference with its House counterpart.

On August 1, 2002, the Senate adopted the H.R. 3009conference report by a 64-34 vote (Senate roll call vote 207).NO is the pro-environment vote. President Bush signed theconference report, already approved by the House, the fol-lowing day.

Senate Votes

+ = Pro-environment action– = Anti-environment actionI = Ineligible to vote? = Absence (counts as negative)

* LCV considers this legislationso environmentally harmfulthat this vote is scored twice.

KEY

2. S

EN

AT

E S

CO

RE

S


Arcti

c Dril

ling*

2002

%

LCV SCORES

% %

106th

Con

gress

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fuel

Econ

omy

IPi

ckup

Tru

cks E

xemp

tion

20%

Ren

ewab

les

Fuel

Econ

omy

II

10%

Ren

ewab

lesEn

ergy

Effic

iency

Facto

ry Fa

rms

Drink

ing W

ater

Pro

tecti

onM

unici

pal S

olid

Was

te In

ciner

atio

nRe

new

able

Fuel

Liabil

ity W

aiver

Yucca

Mou

ntain

Nucle

ar A

ccide

nt Li

abilit

yW

ater

Con

serv

atio

nDa

m Re

licen

sing

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

2001

107th

Con

gress

amabalA.J,SNOISSES )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

YBLEHS )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - +

aksalAIKSWOKRUM )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SNEVETS )R( 8 6 31 0 - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - -

anozirALYK )R( 8 21 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + + - - - - -

MC NIAC )R( 63 14 52 6 + + + + - - - ? - + + - - - - -

sasnakrANOSNIHCTUH )R( 4 0 31 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NLOCNIL )D( 23 42 05 13 + - - - - + - - - - - - - + - -

ainrofilaCREXOB )D( 69 49 001 88 + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + +

NIETSNIEF )D( 08 28 57 49 + + + + + + + - + - + + + + + -

odaroloCDRALLA )R( 8 6 31 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

LLEBPMAC )R( 8 21 0 6 - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - +

tucitcennoCDDOD )D( 08 67 88 88 + + + + + + + + - - + + - + - +

NAMREBEIL )D( 88 28 001 49 + + + + + + + + + - + + - + + -

erawaleDNEDIB )D( 69 49 001 88 + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + +

REPRAC )D( 06 95 36 + - + + - + + + - - + + - + - -

adirolF.B,MAHARG )D( 46 95 57 18 + + + + - + + - - - + - - + + -

LLIB,NOSLEN )D( 86 95 88 + + + + - + + - - - + - - + + -

Senate Votes



KEY


Arcti

c Dril

ling*

2002

%

LCV SCORES

% %

106th

Con

gress

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fuel

Econ

omy

IPi

ckup

Tru

cks E

xemp

tion

20%

Ren

ewab

les

Fuel

Econ

omy

II

10%

Ren

ewab

lesEn

ergy

Effic

iency

Facto

ry Fa

rms

Drink

ing W

ater

Pro

tecti

onM

unici

pal S

olid

Was

te In

ciner

atio

nRe

new

able

Fuel

Liabil

ity W

aiver

Yucca

Mou

ntain

Nucle

ar A

ccide

nt Li

abilit

yW

ater

Con

serv

atio

nDa

m Re

licen

sing

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

2001

107th

Con

gress

aigroeGDNALELC )D( 25 92 001 88 + - - + - - - + - - - - - + - -

.Z,RELLIM )D( 61 6 83 001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - -

iiawaHAKAKA )D( 46 95 57 18 - + + + - + + + - - + + - + + ?

EYUONI )D( 67 17 88 44 - + + + - + + + - - + + + + + +

ohadIGIARC )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

OPARC )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

sionillINIBRUD )D( 29 88 001 001 + + + + + + + + + + + - - + + +

DLAREGZTIF )R( 25 95 83 05 + - + - + + + - + + + - - + - -

anaidnIHYAB )D( 65 14 88 18 + - + - - + - - - - - + - + + -

RAGUL )R( 21 21 31 13 - - - + - - - + - - - - - - - -

awoIYELSSARG )R( 4 6 0 6 - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - -

NIKRAH )D( 48 67 001 49 + + - + + + - + - + - + + + + +

sasnaKKCABNWORB )R( 4 6 0 52 - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - -

STREBOR )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ykcutneKGNINNUB )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MC LLENNOC )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

anaisiuoLXUAERB )D( 02 81 52 91 - - - - - + - - - - - + - + - -

UEIRDNAL )D( 02 21 83 44 - - - - - + - - - - - - - + - -

Senate Votes



KEY

2. S

EN

AT

E S

CO

RE

S


Arcti

c Dril

ling*

2002

%

LCV SCORES

% %

106th

Con

gress

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fuel

Econ

omy

IPi

ckup

Tru

cks E

xemp

tion

20%

Ren

ewab

les

Fuel

Econ

omy

II

10%

Ren

ewab

lesEn

ergy

Effic

iency

Facto

ry Fa

rms

Drink

ing W

ater

Pro

tecti

onM

unici

pal S

olid

Was

te In

ciner

atio

nRe

new

able

Fuel

Liabil

ity W

aiver

Yucca

Mou

ntain

Nucle

ar A

ccide

nt Li

abilit

yW

ater

Con

serv

atio

nDa

m Re

licen

sing

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

2001

107th

Con

gress

eniaM.S,SNILLOC )R( 46 67 83 65 + + + + + + + + - + + - + + - -

EWONS )R( 27 28 05 65 + + + + + + + + - + + - + + + -

dnalyraMIKSLUKIM )D( 88 28 001 57 + - + - + + + + + + + + - + + +

SENABRAS )D( 69 49 001 49 + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + +

sttesuhcassaM.E,YDENNEK )D( 48 28 88 18 + + + - + + + + ? + + + ? + + +

YRREK )D( 29 49 88 49 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

nagihciM.C,NIVEL )D( 27 56 88 18 + - + - - + + + - + + - - + + +

WONEBATS )D( 08 17 001 + - + - - + + + + + - + - + + +

atosenniMNOTYAD )D( 29 88 001 + + + - - + + + + + + + + + + +

ENOTSLLEW )D( 001 001 001 49 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

ippississiMNARHCOC )R( 8 6 31 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

TTOL )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

iruossiMDNOB )R( 8 21 0 0 - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - -

NAHANRAC )D( 06 95 36 + - - - - + + + - + - + - + + +

anatnoMSUCUAB )D( 65 74 57 96 + - - - + + + - - - - + + - + -

SNRUB )R( 8 21 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +

aksarbeNLEGAH )R( 0 0 0 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NEB,NOSLEN )D( 82 42 83 + - - - - + + - - - - - - - - -

Senate Votes



KEY


Arcti

c Dril

ling*

2002

%

LCV SCORES

% %

106th

Con

gress

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fuel

Econ

omy

IPi

ckup

Tru

cks E

xemp

tion

20%

Ren

ewab

les

Fuel

Econ

omy

II

10%

Ren

ewab

lesEn

ergy

Effic

iency

Facto

ry Fa

rms

Drink

ing W

ater

Pro

tecti

onM

unici

pal S

olid

Was

te In

ciner

atio

nRe

new

able

Fuel

Liabil

ity W

aiver

Yucca

Mou

ntain

Nucle

ar A

ccide

nt Li

abilit

yW

ater

Con

serv

atio

nDa

m Re

licen

sing

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

2001

107th

Con

gress

adaveNNGISNE )R( 63 14 52 - - + - - + - + - + + + + - - -

DIER )D( 29 49 88 57 + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + +

erihspmaHweNGGERG )R( 44 35 52 13 - + + + - + + + - + - - - + + -

.R,HTIMS )R( 82 53 31 6 + - - - - - + + - + - - - + - -

yesreJweNENIZROC )D( 69 49 001 + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + +

ILLECIRROT )D( 08 67 88 49 + + + + ? + + + - - + + - + + +

ocixeMweNNAMAGNIB )D( 46 95 57 96 + + + + - + + - - - + - - + + -

ICINEMOD )R( 8 6 31 0 - - - - - - - ? - + - - - - - -

kroYweNNOTNILC )D( 88 88 88 + + + + + + - + + - + + + + + +

REMUHCS )D( 29 49 88 001 + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + +

aniloraChtroN.J,SDRAWDE )D( 86 95 88 88 + + - + - + + - - + - - - + + +

SMLEH )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - ? - - ? - - ? ? ? - - ? ?

atokaDhtroNDARNOC )D( 65 35 36 36 + - - + - + + + - + - + - - - +

NAGROD )D( 65 74 57 57 + - - - - + + + - - - + - - + +

oihODE ENIW )R( 21 21 31 91 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HCIVONIOV )R( 0 0 0 31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

amohalkOEFOHNI )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SELKCIN )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Senate Votes



KEY

2. S

EN

AT

E S

CO

RE

S


Arcti

c Dril

ling*

2002

%

LCV SCORES

% %

106th

Con

gress

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fuel

Econ

omy

IPi

ckup

Tru

cks E

xemp

tion

20%

Ren

ewab

les

Fuel

Econ

omy

II

10%

Ren

ewab

lesEn

ergy

Effic

iency

Facto

ry Fa

rms

Drink

ing W

ater

Pro

tecti

onM

unici

pal S

olid

Was

te In

ciner

atio

nRe

new

able

Fuel

Liabil

ity W

aiver

Yucca

Mou

ntain

Nucle

ar A

ccide

nt Li

abilit

yW

ater

Con

serv

atio

nDa

m Re

licen

sing

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

2001

107th

Con

gress

nogerO.G,HTIMS )R( 42 53 0 91 + + - + - + - - - - + - - - - -

NEDYW )D( 08 67 88 001 + + + + + + + - - - + + + + + -

ainavlysnnePMUROTNAS )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - -

RETCEPS )R( 25 35 05 83 - - + + + + - + - + + - - + + -

dnalsIedohREEFAHC )R( 86 67 05 001 + + + + + + + + - + - + - + + -

DEER )D( 001 001 001 001 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

aniloraChtuoSSGNILLOH )D( 27 56 88 36 + + + + - + - + - + + - - + - +

DNOMRUHT )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

atokaDhtuoSELHCSAD )D( 86 95 88 65 + + - + + + + + - ? - + - + ? -

MIT,NOSNHOJ )D( 25 74 36 88 + - - - - + + + - ? - + - + ? +

eessenneTTSIRF )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.F,NOSPMOHT )R( 21 6 52 0 - - - + - - - ? - - - - - - - -

saxeTMMARG )R( 8 21 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + + - - - - -

NOSIHCTUH )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

hatUTTENNEB )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - -

HCTAH )R( 4 6 0 0 - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - -

tnomreVSDROFFEJ )I( 67 67 57 18 + + + + + + + ? + ? - + + + + -

YHAEL )D( 69 49 001 49 + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Senate Votes



KEY


Arcti

c Dril

ling*

2002

%

LCV SCORES

% %

106th

Con

gress

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fuel

Econ

omy

IPi

ckup

Tru

cks E

xemp

tion

20%

Ren

ewab

les

Fuel

Econ

omy

II

10%

Ren

ewab

lesEn

ergy

Effic

iency

Facto

ry Fa

rms

Drink

ing W

ater

Pro

tecti

onM

unici

pal S

olid

Was

te In

ciner

atio

nRe

new

able

Fuel

Liabil

ity W

aiver

Yucca

Mou

ntain

Nucle

ar A

ccide

nt Li

abilit

yW

ater

Con

serv

atio

nDa

m Re

licen

sing

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

2001

107th

Con

gress

ainigriV.G,NELLA )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RENRAW )R( 61 21 52 91 - - - - - ? - - - - + - - + - -

notgnihsaWLLEWTNAC )D( 08 28 57 + + + + + + + - + + + + - + + -

YARRUM )D( 67 67 57 18 + + + + + + + - + + + - - + + -

ainigriVtseWDRYB )D( 65 74 57 13 + - - - - - + + - - - + - + + +

RELLEFEKCOR )D( 08 17 001 49 + + - + - + - + - - + + + + + +

nisnocsiWDLOGNIEF )D( 48 88 57 001 + - + - + + + + + + + + + + + +

LHOK )D( 46 35 88 57 + - + - - + + + - + - - - + + -

gnimoyWIZNE )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.C,SAMOHT )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDITOR’S NOTE: A member’s score for the 107th Congress is calculated as a percentage of all the Scorecard votes for both 2001 and 2002, rather than as anaverage of each year’s scores.

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


2002 House Vote Descriptions

Agriculture

1. & 2. Farm ConservationFarming and ranching operations cover more than half theland in the 48 contiguous United States. Good stewardshipof this land is vital to keeping our water clean, preservingour open spaces, maintaining local sources of food, and pro-tecting wildlife habitat. The U.S. Department of Agricultureadministers several conservation incentive programs thatencourage agricultural producers to voluntarily preservetheir natural resources. While these programs are popularwith landowners, the vast majority of farmers who seek toenroll in them are turned away due to lack of funding.

In stark contrast to these conservation funding shortfallsare the liberal sums of money spent on federal crop subsidies.Originally created to cushion farmers from the ups-and-downs of the market, crop subsidies, for many years, have dis-proportionately favored large agribusinesses and landlordsover small farmers and ranchers. In 1999, for instance, 45 per-cent of all crop subsidies went to the largest 7 percent offarms. Meanwhile, according to the latest annual statistics, 60percent of U.S. farmers receive no crop subsidies at all.

During its consideration of the 2002 farm bill, the Sen-ate overwhelmingly approved a provision to cap the amountof crop subsidies for any single farm operator. That provi-sion, however, was in danger of being gutted by the confer-ence committee charged with reconciling the House andSenate farm bills. In response, Representative Nick Smith(R-MI) offered a motion to instruct House conferees that thefarm bill should contain a reasonable cap on crop subsidiesand the resulting savings should go to boost funding for ag-ricultural conservation and research programs.

On April 18, 2002, the House approved the Smith mo-tion by a vote of 265-158 (House roll call vote 100). YES isthe pro-environment vote. Despite this approval, the farmbill that emerged from House-Senate conference set cropsubsidy caps so high and created so many loopholes as torender the caps meaningless. This left no savings to be allo-cated for conservation and research.

When the farm bill conference report (H.R. 2624) cameto the House floor for final passage, Representative RonKind (D-WI) offered a motion to send the bill back to theHouse Agriculture Committee with instructions to restorethe crop subsidy cap and dedicate much of the savings toconservation programs. On May 2, 2002, the House rejectedthe Kind motion to recommit the bill by a 172-251 vote(House roll call vote 122). YES is the pro-environment vote.The farm bill passed the House later that day, passed theSenate on May 8, 2002, and was signed into law by PresidentBush on May 13, 2002.

Public Lands & Resources

3. Defense EnvironmentalExemptionsThe 25 million acres of land owned and operated by the De-fense Department provide important habitat for hundredsof endangered and threatened species and for migratorybirds. However, military officials contend that protectingthese species and complying with environmental laws ham-pers military readiness activities.

According to an April 2002 poll, some 85 percent ofregistered U.S. voters believe that government agencies, in-cluding the Defense Department, should have to follow thesame laws as everyone else. Nevertheless, the Departmentproposed that Congress grant it sweeping exemptions fromsome of the nation’s most important environmental andpublic health laws, including the Endangered Species Act,the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protec-tion Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act and Superfund. During consideration of H.R.4546, the defense authorization bill, the House Armed Ser-vices Committee rejected many of these requests but in-serted provisions exempting the military from the Endan-gered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

These exemptions would eliminate vital protection formore than 300 federally listed threatened and endangeredspecies living on Defense Department lands. They wouldalso allow the Defense Department to kill migratory birdsand destroy their nesting areas in the name of “militaryreadiness activities,” without any oversight, accountability orassessment of biological impacts. These exemptions are notonly harmful but also unnecessary. For example, under theEndangered Species Act, the Secretary of Defense alreadyhas the authority to waive regulations, on a case-by-case ba-sis, in the interest of national security.

The House bill also included a provision to reduce pro-tections for pristine Utah wilderness lands administered bythe Departments of Interior and Agriculture, allowing theDefense Department to build roads, close public access anddeny water rights necessary to protect wildlife. Still anotherprovision would override California state law to allow a four-lane toll road to be constructed through California’s SanOnofre State Beach Park.

To make matters worse, the rule for debate of the billprohibited Representatives Nick Rahall (D-WV), MauriceHinchey (D-NY), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Loretta Sanchez(D-CA) from introducing their proposed amendments on theHouse floor to strike the environmental exemptions. As a re-sult, the vote on this particular rule became a de facto vote on


the bill’s environmental merits. On May 9, 2002, theHouse narrowly approved the rule by a vote of 216-200(House roll call vote 136). NO is the pro-environment vote.The House then approved the authorizing bill by a 359-58vote. The Senate defense authorization bill did not exempt themilitary from any environmental laws. At press time, theHouse and Senate had not come to agreement on the bill.

4. California Coastal DrillingIn May 2002, the Bush administration spent $235 million tobuy back oil and gas rights and stop offshore drilling in theeastern Gulf of Mexico, where Florida Governor Jeb Bushhad opposed oil development. This move prompted a re-quest from California Governor Gray Davis and otherelected officials in California to do the same for 36 undevel-oped leases off the coast of Ventura, Santa Barbara and SanLuis Obispo counties. Interior Secretary Gale Norton deniedtheir requests.

During House consideration of H.R. 5093, the Depart-ment of Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003,Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amend-ment to prohibit drilling activity in the 36 California off-shore oil leases. On July 17, 2002, the House approved theamendment by a 252-172 vote (House roll call vote 315).YES is the pro-environment vote. The Senate later approveda similar resolution by unanimous consent, introduced bySenator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), for its Interior bill. How-ever, at press time the Senate had not yet passed its Interiorbill, and the fate of this provision remained uncertain.

5. Klamath WildlifeRefuge Farming LeasesThe Klamath Basin of Oregon and California hosts up to 80percent of the Pacific flyway’s waterfowl and the greatestconcentration of wintering bald eagles in the continentalUnited States. Salmon and other anadromous fish spawn inportions of the Klamath River and its tributaries, and thebasin’s six national wildlife refuges are among the most im-portant migratory-bird habitat in the country.

Unfortunately, more than 20,000 acres of these refugesare leased for environmentally harmful commercial agricul-ture. Unlike other refuges that permit some form of farmingin order to provide crop foods for wildlife, the Klamath Ba-sin refuges allow purely commercial farming that makes useof 56 different pesticides, including several that are knowncarcinogens, neurotoxins and endocrine disrupters.

Farming in the refuges also consumes vast amounts ofscarce water supplies, and refuge marshes periodically go dryas water is diverted for irrigation. In addition, runoff from ag-ricultural chemicals and erosion of farmland further degradeswater quality in both the refuges and the Klamath River.

To help address these problems, Representatives EarlBlumenauer (D-OR) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) offered

an amendment to H.R. 5093, the Interior appropriations bill.The amendment would have prohibited the Fish and WildlifeService from issuing new commercial agriculture leases in theKlamath Basin for crops that have severe environmental im-pacts. The amendment would still have permitted leases thatwere more consistent with farming practices on other nationalwildlife refuges. On July 17, 2002, the House rejected theamendment by a 201-223 vote (House roll call vote 316). YESis the pro-environment vote. At press time the Senate had notapproved an Interior funding bill for 2003.

Pollution & Public Health

6. Yucca MountainRadioactive waste is not just one of the world’s most danger-ous substances, it is one of the most difficult to safely store.In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, di-recting the Department of Energy to develop two deep-burial sites for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste fromthe nation’s nuclear facilities. In 1987, Congress amendedthe act to designate Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northof Las Vegas, Nevada, as the sole site for consideration as apermanent waste repository.

Yucca Mountain is poorly suited to permanent nuclearwaste storage. Thirty-three earthquake faults intersect thearea and the proposed storage site is situated above an aqui-fer that provides drinking water to a nearby community.Moreover, because most of the nation’s nuclear waste is lo-cated on or near the East Coast, transporting the waste toYucca Mountain would involve extensive truck, rail andbarge shipments: an estimated 105,000 shipments of irradi-ated fuel would be moved across the country over a period ofnearly 40 years.

A report issued in December 2001 by the General Ac-counting Office identified 293 “significant unresolved tech-nical” issues pertaining to the Yucca Mountain site. A Janu-ary 2002 letter by the Nuclear Waste Technical ReviewBoard found that the “technical basis” for the EnergyDepartment’s performance estimates for Yucca Mountainwas “weak to moderate.” Nevertheless, in February 2002,Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham officially recommendedthe Yucca Mountain site to President Bush, who approvedthe recommendation and referred it to Congress.

The Governor of Nevada vetoed the site recommenda-tion in early April, but on May 8, 2002, the House, by a 306-117 vote, moved to override Nevada’s veto and proceed withconstruction of the Yucca Mountain repository (House rollcall vote 133). NO is the pro-environment vote. The Senatelater passed a similar resolution (Senate vote 12). With con-gressional approval in hand, the Energy Department is nowpreparing to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionfor a license for the Yucca Mountain facility.

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


7. Right to KnowDuring House debate over legislation to establish the De-partment of Homeland Security, some members of Con-gress used national security concerns to press for a new cat-egory of protected information—“voluntarily submittedcritical infrastructure information”—that would be exemptfrom a number of public disclosure requirements. Under theresulting House bill, a private company could determineunilaterally whether material it shares with the governmentfits this exemption. The exempt information could not bereleased under the Freedom of Information Act or used incivil litigation against the company. Government employeeswho released the information could be jailed for a year.

Opponents of this provision contended that it was writ-ten so broadly that it could render off-limits a large array ofinformation routinely used by federal, state and local gov-ernments to enforce laws. In particular, the provision couldbar the government from disclosing information on environ-mental hazards, health hazards, product defects and otherdangers, including reports of accidental spills. The exemp-tion could also shelter industries from the consequences ofviolating the nation’s environmental, consumer protection,and health and safety laws.

During floor debate of the House homeland securitybill (H.R. 5005), Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in-troduced an amendment to strike this exemption. On July26, 2002, the House rejected the Schakowsky amendment bya 188-240 vote (House roll call vote 363). YES is the pro-en-vironment vote. At press time the Senate had not yet fin-ished its consideration of Homeland Security legislation.

International

8. Trade and EnvironmentAs trade has become an increasingly vital component of theglobal economy, important policy decisions on such issues asmarine species conservation and sustainable forestry prac-tices are increasingly being made in the context of interna-tional trade agreements and institutions. These bodies oftenfail to incorporate environmental concerns in their decisionsand have, in some cases, rejected environmental and publichealth protections as barriers to trade.

This issue came to a head during the House debate over“Fast Track” trade legislation. Fast Track authority allowsthe President to negotiate trade agreements with expeditedprocedures for approval or disapproval by Congress. Con-gress agrees to consider the trade agreements under a proce-dure with mandatory deadlines, no amendments, limited de-bate, and an up-or-down vote. In exchange, Congress ispermitted to set negotiating objectives, conditions for ap-proving agreements, and guidelines for any changes to do-mestic law.

Fast Track authority lapsed in 1994. The environmentalcommunity supports a consensus-based Fast Track author-ity that would encourage environmental protection andguard against weakening environmental standards while stillpromoting economic growth. Such was not the case with theTrade Act of 2002 (H.R. 3009), which was opposed by con-servationists for failing to address key environmental provi-sions in a meaningful manner and for failing to encouragereal environmental progress and cooperation with tradingpartners. The bill also failed to ensure that provisions such asChapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), which grant foreign corporations broad powersto sue U.S. taxpayers for damages if U.S. environmental,health or land protection laws interfere with the corpora-tions’ business, are not included in future trade deals.

On July 27, 2002, the House adopted the H.R. 3009conference report by a 215-212 vote (House roll call vote370). NO is the pro-environment vote. The bill was adoptedby the Senate on August 1, 2002, and signed into law byPresident Bush the next day.

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

amabalA1 NAHALLAC )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

2 TTEREVE )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

3 YELIR )R( 0 0 0 3 - - ? - - ? - -

4 TLOHREDA )R( 5 0 7 3 - - - - - - - -

5 REMARC )D( 63 05 92 03 - - + + + - - +

6 SUHCAB )R( 5 0 7 7 - - - - - - - -

7 DRAILLIH )D( 46 36 46 36 - - + + + - + +

aksalALA .D,GNUOY )R( 9 52 0 7 ? - - - - + - +

anozirA1 EKALF )R( 41 52 7 + + - - - - - -

2 ROTSAP )D( 28 57 68 77 - + + + + - + +

3 PMUTS )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - ?

4 GGEDAHS )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

5 EBLOK )R( 9 0 41 32 - - - - - - - -

6 HTROWYAH )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

sasnakrA1 YRREB )D( 14 52 05 72 - - + - - - - +

2 REDYNS )D( 46 83 97 38 - - + + + - - -

3 NAMZOOB )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

4 SSOR )D( 14 83 34 - - + - - - + +

ainrofilaC1 .M,NOSPMOHT )D( 19 57 001 77 - - + + + + + +

2 REGREH )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

3 ESO )R( 81 31 12 7 - - ? + - ? - -

4 ELTTILOOD )R( 5 0 7 3 - - - - - - - -

5 IUSTAM )D( 001 001 001 39 + + + + + + + +

6 YESLOOW )D( 59 88 001 79 - + + + + + + +

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 EGROEG,RELLIM )D( 001 001 001 39 + + + + + + + +

8 ISOLEP )D( 59 001 39 39 + + + + + + + +

9 EEL )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

01 REHCSUAT )D( 68 57 39 09 + + + + + - + -

11 OBMOP )R( 9 31 7 3 - - - - - + - -

21 SOTNAL )D( 19 57 001 08 + + + ? ? + + +

31 KRATS )D( 28 001 17 38 + + + + + + + +

41 OOHSE )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

51 ADNOH )D( 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

61 NERGFOL )D( 59 001 39 76 + + + + + + + +

71 RRAF )D( 001 001 001 09 + + + + + + + +

81 TIDNOC )D( 28 57 68 35 - - + + + + + +

91 HCIVONADAR )R( 5 31 0 01 - - - - - + - -

02 YELOOD )D( 63 52 34 35 - - + + - - - -

12 .W,SAMOHT )R( 5 0 7 7 - - - - - - - -

22 SPPAC )D( 59 001 39 78 + + + + + + + +

32 YLGELLAG )R( 81 83 7 32 - + - + - + - -

42 NAMREHS )D( 59 001 39 79 + + + + + + + +

52 MC NOEK )R( 5 31 0 7 - - - - - + - -

62 NAMREB )D( 68 001 97 09 + + + + + + + +

72 FFIHCS )D( 59 001 39 + + + + + + + +

82 REIERD )R( 5 31 0 7 - - - + - - - -

92 NAMXAW )D( 19 57 001 79 + + ? + + ? + +

03 ARRECEB )D( 59 001 39 39 + + + + + + + +

13 SILOS )D( 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

23 NOSTAW )D( 59 88 001 + + ? + + + + +

33 DRALLA-LABYOR )D( 59 001 39 78 + + + + + + + +

43 ONATILOPAN )D( 59 88 001 78 + - + + + + + +

53 SRETAW )D( 001 001 001 09 + + + + + + + +

63 NAMRAH )D( 19 57 001 + + + + + + - -

73 M-REDNELLIM C DLANOD )D( 59 88 001 39 + ? + + + + + +

83 NROH )R( 54 83 05 36 + - - + - - + -

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

93 ECYOR )R( 9 52 0 31 + + - - - - - -

04 YRREJ,SIWEL )R( 41 83 0 01 + - - + - + - -

14 YRAG,RELLIM )R( 5 31 0 0 + - - - - - - -

24 ACAB )D( 86 57 46 75 - - + + + + + +

34 TREVLAC )R( 9 52 0 3 + - - + - - - -

44 ONOB )R( 9 52 0 7 + - - + - - - -

54 REHCABARHOR )R( 41 52 7 01 + - - - - - - +

64 ZEHCNAS )D( 001 001 001 38 + + + + + + + +

74 XOC )R( 41 83 0 01 + + - + - - - -

84 ASSI )R( 5 31 0 ? - - + - - - -

94 .S,SIVAD )D( 19 88 39 + + + + + + + -

05 RENLIF )D( 59 88 001 79 - + + + + + + +

15 MAHGNINNUC )R( 5 31 0 01 - - - + - - - -

25 RETNUH )R( 41 83 0 0 + - - + - - - +

odaroloC1 DE ETTEG )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

2 .M,LLADU )D( 001 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

3 MC SINNI )R( 81 52 41 02 + + - - - - - -

4 REFFAHCS )R( 0 0 0 7 ? - - ? - - - -

5 YELFEH )R( 41 52 7 71 + + - - - - - -

6 ODERCNAT )R( 41 83 0 71 + + + - - - - -

tucitcennoC1 NOSRAL )D( 68 57 39 39 - + + + + - + +

2 SNOMMIS )R( 46 05 17 + - - + + - - +

3 DE ORUAL )D( 19 88 39 79 + - + + + + + +

4 SYAHS )R( 37 05 68 79 + + - + + - - -

5 .J,YENOLAM )D( 68 57 39 78 + + ? + + - + +

6 .N,NOSNHOJ )R( 37 36 97 76 + + + + + - - -

erawaleDLA ELTSAC )R( 46 83 97 37 + + + - - - - -

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

adirolF1 .J,RELLIM )R( 22 52 0 + - - + - - - -

2 DYOB )D( 95 83 17 04 - - + + - - - +

3 .C,NWORB )D( 37 36 97 08 - - + + + - + +

4 WAHSNERC )R( 5 0 7 - - - - - - - -

5 NAMRUHT )D( 77 36 68 36 - - + + + - + +

6 SNRAETS )R( 72 05 41 01 + + - + - - - +

7 ACIM )R( 5 31 0 7 + - - - - - - -

8 RELLEK )R( 9 31 7 + - - - - - - -

9 SIKARILIB )R( 63 83 63 31 + + - + - - - -

01 .B,GNUOY )R( 72 83 12 0 + + - + - - - -

11 MIJ,SIVAD )D( 77 36 68 37 + + ? + + - + -

21 MANTUP )R( 9 0 41 - - - - - - - -

31 .D,RELLIM )R( 32 52 12 03 + + - - - - - -

41 SSOG )R( 72 83 12 33 + + - + - - - -

51 .D,NODLEW )R( 32 83 41 7 + + - + - - - -

61 YELOF )R( 32 0 63 04 - - - - - - - -

71 KEEM )D( 37 57 17 37 + - + + + - + +

81 NENITHEL-SOR )R( 81 52 41 72 + ? - + - - - -

91 RELXEW )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

02 HCSTUED )D( 59 88 001 39 + + + + + - + +

12 TRALAB-ZAID )R( 81 52 41 02 + - - + - - - -

22 WAHS )R( 72 83 12 71 + + - + - - - -

32 .A,SGNITSAH )D( 37 36 97 78 ? - + + + - + +

aigroeG1 NOTSGNIK )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

2 POHSIB )D( 54 52 75 34 - - ? + - - - +

3 .M,SNILLOC )R( 9 52 0 71 + + - - - - - -

4 MC YENNIK )D( 59 001 39 79 + + + + + + + +

5 NHOJ,SIWEL )D( 77 88 17 39 - + + + + + + +

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 NOSKASI )R( 41 31 41 61 + - - - - - - -

7 RRAB )R( 9 31 7 71 + - - - - - - -

8 SSILBMAHC )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

9 LAED )R( 5 31 0 31 + - - - - - - -

01 DOOWRON )R( 9 31 7 01 - - - - - - - +

11 REDNIL )R( 5 31 0 01 + - - - - - - -

iiawaH1 EIBMORCREBA )D( 68 57 39 09 - - + + + + + +

2 KNIM 1 )D( 68 57 39 39 - - + + + + + +

ohadI1 RETTO )R( 5 0 7 - - - - - - - -

2 NOSPMIS )R( 0 0 0 0 ? - - - - - - -

sionillI1 HSUR )D( 46 57 75 37 + - + + + - + +

2 NOSKCAJ )D( 001 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

3 IKSNIPIL )D( 63 83 63 36 + - + ? ? - + ?

4 ZERREITUG )D( 68 57 39 39 + - + + + - + +

5 HCIVEJOGALB )D( 77 05 39 39 + - + ? ? - + +

6 EDYH )R( 41 31 41 7 + - - - - ? - -

7 .D,SIVAD )D( 19 88 39 79 + + + + + - + +

8 ENARC )R( 5 31 0 31 + ? ? - - ? - -

9 YKSWOKAHCS )D( 001 001 001 09 + + + + + + + +

01 KRIK )R( 95 83 17 + - - + + - - -

11 RELLEW )R( 81 0 92 02 - - - - - - - -

21 OLLETSOC )D( 95 05 46 76 - - + + - - + +

31 TREGGIB )R( 72 83 12 33 + + - - + - - -

41 TRETSAH )R( NOITERCSIDSIHTASETOVESUOHEHTFOREKAEPSEHT

51 .VYHTOMIT,NOSNHOJ )R( 05 52 46 - - - + + - - -

61 OLLUZNAM )R( 9 31 7 7 - - - - - - + -

1 Representative Patsy Mink died on September 28, 2002.

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

71 SNAVE )D( 68 88 68 39 + - + + + + + +

81 LA DOOH )R( 63 31 05 02 - - - + - - - -

91 SPLEHP )D( 54 05 34 35 - - + + - - + +

02 SUKMIHS )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

anaidnI1 YKSOLCSIV )D( 95 05 46 08 - - + + - - + +

2 ECNEP )R( 5 31 0 - - - - - + - -

3 REMEOR )D( 68 88 68 76 + + + + + + - +

4 REDUOS )R( 5 31 0 7 - - - - - + - -

5 REYUB )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

6 NOTRUB )R( 0 0 0 0 - - ? - - ? - -

7 SNREK )R( 41 52 7 + + - - - - - -

8 RELTTETSOH )R( 32 36 0 7 + + + - - - + +

9 LLIH )D( 54 31 46 36 - - - + - - - -

01 .J,NOSRAC )D( 19 88 39 38 + - + + + + + +

awoI1 HCAEL )R( 95 83 17 76 + + - + - - - -

2 ELSSUN )R( 32 52 12 7 + + - - - - - -

3 LLEWSOB )D( 37 57 17 35 + - + + - + + +

4 EKSNAG )R( 54 83 05 03 + + - + - - - -

5 MAHTAL )R( 41 52 7 0 + + - - - - - -

sasnaK1 YRREJ,NAROM )R( 0 0 0 31 - - - - - - - -

2 NUYR )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

3 EROOM )D( 28 88 97 78 + + + + + + + -

4 TRHAIT )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

ykcutneK1 DLEIFTIHW )R( 0 0 0 31 - - - - - - - -

2 .R,SIWEL )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

3 PUHTRON )R( 9 31 7 7 + - - - - - - -

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 .K,SACUL )D( 81 31 12 03 - - + - - - - -

5 .H,SREGOR )R( 5 0 7 7 ? - - - - - - -

6 REHCTELF )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

anaisiuoL1 RETTIV )R( 0 0 0 4 - - - - - - - -

2 NOSREFFEJ )D( 55 05 75 07 - ? + + + - + -

3 NIZUAT )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

4 MC YRERC )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

5 YESKOOC )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

6 REKAB )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

7 NHOJ )D( 9 31 7 31 - - + - - - - -

eniaM1 .T,NELLA )D( 19 88 39 78 + + + + + - + +

2 ICCADLAB )D( 19 88 39 77 + + + + + - + +

dnalyraM1 TSERHCLIG )R( 63 31 05 75 - - - + - - - -

2 HCILRHE )R( 72 83 12 32 + - - + + - - -

3 NIDRAC )D( 19 88 39 09 + + + + + - + +

4 NNYW )D( 68 57 39 77 + - + + + - + +

5 REYOH )D( 68 88 68 37 + + + + + - + +

6 TTELTRAB )R( 63 83 63 7 + - - + - - - +

7 SGNIMMUC )D( 19 57 001 39 + - + + + - + +

8 ALLEROM )R( 68 57 39 78 + + + + + - + -

sttesuhcassaM1 REVLO )D( 19 88 39 79 + + + + + - + +

2 LAEN )D( 77 88 17 09 + + + + + - + +

3 MC NREVOG )D( 001 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

4 KNARF )D( 001 001 001 09 + + + + + + + +

5 NAHEEM )D( 77 36 68 001 + + ? + + + ? ?

6 YENREIT )D( 001 001 001 39 + + + + + + + +

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 YEKRAM )D( 59 88 001 09 ? + + + + + + +

8 ONAUPAC )D( 59 001 39 79 + + + + + + + +

9 HCNYL )D( 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

01 TNUHALED )D( 19 57 001 39 - + + + + - + +

nagihciM1 KAPUTS )D( 77 88 17 07 + + + + + - + +

2 ARTSKEOH )R( 23 83 92 01 + + - - - - - +

3 SRELHE )R( 95 36 75 05 + + + + + - - -

4 PMAC )R( 9 0 41 3 - - - - - - - -

5 AICRAB )D( 46 36 46 05 + - + + - - + +

6 NOTPU )R( 63 52 34 73 + + - - - - - -

7 .N,HTIMS )R( 9 52 0 31 + + - - - - - -

8 .M,SREGOR )R( 5 0 7 - - - - - - - -

9 EEDLIK )D( 68 88 68 78 + + + + + - + +

01 ROINOB )D( 28 57 68 79 + + + ? ? + + +

11 GREBNELLONK )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

21 .S,NIVEL )D( 68 88 68 09 + + + + + - + +

31 SREVIR )D( 59 001 39 08 + + + + + + + +

41 SREYNOC )D( 19 88 39 39 + - + + + + + +

51 KCIRTAPLIK )D( 28 88 97 78 + + + + + - + +

61 LLEGNID )D( 28 88 97 37 + + + + + - + +

atosenniM1 THCENKTUG )R( 5 0 7 71 - - - - - - - -

2 .M,YDENNEK )R( 23 83 92 + - - + + - - -

3 DATSMAR )R( 37 05 68 08 + + - + + - - -

4 MC MULLOC )D( 59 001 39 + + + + + + + +

5 OBAS )D( 68 88 68 09 + - + + + + + +

6 REHTUL )D( 001 001 001 39 + + + + + + + +

7 .C,NOSRETEP )D( 54 52 75 04 - - - + - - - +

8 RATSREBO )D( 28 88 97 37 + - + + + + + +

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ippississiM1 REKCIW )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

2 .B,NOSPMOHT )D( 46 36 46 77 - - + + + - + +

3 GNIREKCIP )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

4 SWOHS )D( 32 52 12 72 - - + - - - - +

5 .G,ROLYAT )D( 54 05 34 04 + - + - + - - +

iruossiM1 YALC )D( 28 57 68 + - + + + - + +

2 NIKA )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

3 TDRAHPEG )D( 19 88 39 39 + - + + + + + +

4 NOTLEKS )D( 14 83 34 74 - - - + + - + -

5 MC .K,YHTRAC )D( 59 001 39 38 + + + + + + + +

6 SEVARG )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

7 TNULB )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - ? ?

8 NOSREME )R( 5 0 7 3 - - - - - - - -

9 FOHSLUH )R( 5 0 7 02 - - - - - - - -

anatnoMLA GREBHER )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

aksarbeN1 RETUEREB )R( 81 52 41 73 + + - ? ? - - -

2 YRRET )R( 0 0 0 31 - - - - - - ? -

3 ENROBSO )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

adaveN1 YELKREB )D( 68 001 97 08 + + + + + + + +

2 SNOBBIG )R( 9 52 0 31 + - - - - + - -

erihspmaHweN1 UNUNUS )R( 63 83 63 02 + + - + - - - -

2 SSAB )R( 54 52 75 74 + + - - - - - -

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

yesreJweN1 SWERDNA )D( 59 88 001 79 + + + + + - + +

2 LO ODNOIB )R( 77 36 68 75 + + - + + - - +

3 NOTXAS )R( 95 83 17 36 + - - + + - - -

4 .C,HTIMS )R( 37 05 68 08 + - ? + + - - +

5 AMEKUOR )R( 55 83 46 76 + ? ? + + - ? ?

6 ENOLLAP )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

7 NOSUGREF )R( 95 83 17 + - - + + - - -

8 LLERCSAP )D( 19 88 39 001 + + + + + - + +

9 NAMHTOR )D( 001 001 001 09 + + + + + + + +

01 ENYAP )D( 59 88 001 09 + + + + + - + +

11 NESYUHGNILERF )R( 55 83 46 36 + - - + + - - -

21 TLOH )D( 001 001 001 001 + + + + + + + +

31 ZEDNENEM )D( 59 88 001 79 + + + + + + - +

ocixeMweN1 .H,NOSLIW )R( 9 31 7 71 + - - - - - - -

2 NEEKS )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

3 .T,LLADU )D( 001 001 001 09 + + + + + + + +

kroYweN1 ICCURG )R( 41 0 12 - - - - - - - -

2 LEARSI )D( 77 88 17 + + - + + + + +

3 GNIK )R( 32 31 92 03 + - - - - - - -

4 MC .C,YHTRAC )D( 68 57 39 38 + - + + + - + +

5 NAMREKCA )D( 001 001 001 39 + + + + + + + +

6 SKEEM )D( 68 88 68 78 + + + + + - + +

7 YELWORC )D( 19 001 68 79 + + + + + + + +

8 RELDAN )D( 68 36 001 79 + + + ? ? ? + +

9 RENIEW )D( 001 001 001 39 + + + + + + + +

01 SNWOT )D( 77 57 97 78 + - + + + - + +

11 SNEWO )D( 59 001 39 79 + + + + + + + +

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21 ZEUQZALEV )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

31 ALLESSOF )R( 72 52 92 03 + - - + - - - -

41 .C,YENOLAM )D( 59 001 39 77 + + + + + + + +

51 LEGNAR )D( 59 88 001 38 + - + + + + + +

61 ONARRES )D( 28 001 17 39 + + + + + + + +

71 LEGNE )D( 59 88 001 39 + + + + + - + +

81 YEWOL )D( 59 88 001 78 - + + + + + + +

91 YLLEK )R( 77 36 68 77 + + - + + + - -

02 NAMLIG )R( 37 83 39 07 + - - + + - - -

12 MC YTLUN )D( 001 001 001 78 + + + + + + + +

22 YENEEWS )R( 63 52 34 02 + - - + - - - -

32 TRELHEOB )R( 86 83 68 07 + - - + + - - -

42 MC HGUH )R( 63 52 34 32 + - - ? ? - - +

52 HSLAW )R( 05 83 75 73 + - - + - - - +

62 YEHCNIH )D( 59 001 39 78 + + + + + + + +

72 SDLONYER )R( 81 31 12 02 + - - - - - - -

82 RETHGUALS )D( 19 001 68 39 + + + + + + + +

92 LA ECLAF )D( 19 88 39 78 + + ? + + + + +

03 NNIUQ )R( 14 83 34 04 + - - + - - - +

13 NOTHGUOH )R( 63 83 63 34 + + - + - - - -

aniloraChtroN1 NOTYALC )D( 28 57 68 77 + - + + + - + +

2 EGDIREHTE )D( 46 83 97 37 - - + + - - + -

3 SENOJ )R( 32 52 12 02 - - - + - - - +

4 ECIRP )D( 28 36 39 38 - - + + + - + +

5 RRUB )R( 5 31 0 7 - - - + - - - -

6 ELBOC )R( 9 31 7 7 - - - - - - - +

7 MC ERYTNI )D( 46 83 97 33 - - + + - - - +

8 SEYAH )R( 5 31 0 31 - - - - - - - +

9 KCIRYM )R( 41 52 7 01 - + - + - - - -

01 REGNELLAB )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

11 .C,ROLYAT )R( 9 31 7 3 - - - - - - - +

21 TTAW )D( 77 57 97 78 + - + + + - + +

atokaDhtroNLA YOREMOP )D( 86 36 17 75 + - + + - - + +

oihO1 TOBAHC )R( 81 52 41 03 + + - - - - - -

2 NAMTROP )R( 81 52 41 03 + - - + - - - -

3 .T,LLAH 2 )D( 37 36 97 77 + - ? + + ? + +

4 YELXO )R( 9 52 0 0 + - - + - - - -

5 ROMLLIG )R( 41 31 41 7 + - - - - - - -

6 DNALKCIRTS )D( 68 88 68 07 + + + + + - + +

7 NOSBOH )R( 9 52 0 01 + + - - - - - -

8 RENHEOB )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

9 RUTPAK )D( 77 001 46 08 + + + + + + + +

01 HCINICUK )D( 59 001 39 09 + + + + + + + +

11 SENOJSBBUT )D( 28 36 39 08 ? - + + + - + +

21 IREBIT )R( 9 52 0 + + - - - - - -

31 .S,NWORB )D( 59 88 001 79 + + + + + - + +

41 REYWAS )D( 59 88 001 79 + + + + + - + +

51 ECYRP )R( 81 31 12 01 + - - - - - - -

61 ALUGER )R( 81 52 41 31 + - - - - - - +

71 TNACIFART 3 )D( 01 0 41 71 ? ? ? ? ? ? I I

81 YEN )R( 32 31 92 7 + - - - - - - -

91 LA ETTERUOT )R( 32 31 92 32 - - - - - - - +

amohalkO1 NAVILLUS 4 )R( 0 0 - ? - - - - - -

2 .B,NOSRAC )D( 23 83 92 - - + - + - + -

2 Representative Tony Hall resigned from office on September 9, 2002.3 The House of Representatives expelled Representative James Traficant on July 24, 2002.4 Representative John Sullivan was elected by special election and sworn in on February 27, 2002 to replace Representative Steve Largent, who resigned on

February 15, 2002.

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 SNIKTAW )R( 5 31 0 0 - - - - - + - -

4 STTAW )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

5 KOOTSI )R( 5 31 0 3 + ? - - ? - - -

6 .F,SACUL )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

nogerO1 UW )D( 001 001 001 78 + + + + + + + +

2 NEDLAW )R( 5 0 7 7 - - - - - - - -

3 REUANEMULB )D( 19 001 68 09 + + + + + + + +

4 DE OIZAF )D( 59 001 39 09 + + + + + + + +

5 YELOOH )D( 68 57 39 78 + - + + - + + +

ainavlysnneP1 .R,YDARB )D( 37 88 46 08 + + + + + - + +

2 HATTAF )D( 68 57 39 09 + ? + + + - + +

3 IKSROB )D( 68 88 68 78 + + + + + - + +

4 TRAH )R( 41 31 41 + - - - - - - -

5 .J,NOSRETEP )R( 5 31 0 0 + - - - - - - -

6 NEDLOH )D( 46 57 75 05 + - + + + - + +

7 .C,NODLEW )R( 05 05 05 33 + - - + + ? - +

8 DOOWNEERG )R( 95 05 46 05 + + - + + - - -

9 RETSUHS )R( 01 31 8 + - - - - - - -

01 DOOWREHS )R( 41 31 41 01 + - - - - - - -

11 IKSROJNAK )D( 37 88 46 77 + + + + + - + +

21 AHTRUM )D( 14 05 63 73 + ? + + - - - +

31 LEFFEOH )D( 19 88 39 39 + + + + + - + +

41 ENYOC )D( 59 001 39 09 + + + + + + + +

51 YEMOOT )R( 41 52 7 02 + + - - - - - -

61 STTIP )R( 9 52 0 01 + + - - - - - -

71 SAKEG )R( 5 31 0 3 + - - - - - - -

81 ELYOD )D( 86 88 75 35 + + + + + - + +

91 STTALP )R( 72 83 12 + - - + + - - -

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

02 ARACSAM )D( 55 05 75 35 + - + ? ? - + +

12 HSILGNE )R( 23 52 63 02 + - - + - - - -

dnalsIedohR1 .P,YDENNEK )D( 59 001 39 39 + + + + + + + +

2 NIVEGNAL )D( 59 001 39 + + + + + + + +

aniloraChtuoS1 .H,NWORB )R( 5 0 7 - - - - - - - -

2 .J,NOSLIW )R( 52 52 + - - - - - - +

3 .L,MAHARG )R( 81 52 41 7 + - - - - - - +

4 DE TNIM )R( 9 52 0 01 + + - - - - - -

5 TTARPS )D( 86 36 17 76 + - + + + - - +

6 NRUBYLC )D( 86 57 46 09 + - + + + - + +

atokaDhtuoSLA ENUHT )R( 9 52 0 01 + + - - - - - -

eessenneT1 SNIKNEJ )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

2 NACNUD )R( 81 52 41 31 + - - - - - - +

3 PMAW )R( 9 31 7 31 + - - - - - - -

4 YRAELLIH )R( 5 0 7 7 - - - - - - - -

5 TNEMELC )D( 37 36 97 74 ? - + + + - + +

6 NODROG )D( 86 36 17 35 - - + + + - + +

7 TNAYRB )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

8 RENNAT )D( 23 31 34 73 - - + - - - - -

9 DROF )D( 37 05 68 77 + - + + + - - -

saxeT1 NILDNAS )D( 63 05 92 72 - - + - + - + +

2 RENRUT )D( 23 52 63 34 - - + - - - - +

3 .S,NOSNHOJ )R( 5 0 7 3 - - - - - - - -

4 .R,LLAH )D( 5 0 7 01 - - - - - - - -

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5 .P,SNOISSES )R( 0 0 0 01 - - - - - - - -

6 NOTRAB )R( 5 0 7 3 - - - - - - - -

7 NOSREBLUC )R( 5 31 0 + - - - - - - -

8 .K,YDARB )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

9 NOSPMAL )D( 05 83 75 76 - - + - + - - +

01 TTEGGOD )D( 59 001 39 79 + + + + + + + +

11 .C,SDRAWDE )D( 14 83 34 05 - - + - - - + +

21 REGNARG )R( 5 0 7 3 - - - - - - - -

31 YRREBNROHT )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

41 LUAP )R( 14 05 63 72 - - - + - + + +

51 ASOJONIH )D( 86 57 46 06 + - + + + + + -

61 SEYER )D( 55 05 75 07 ? - - - + + + +

71 MLOHNETS )D( 41 31 41 7 - - + - - - - -

81 EEL-NOSKCAJ )D( 86 36 17 77 - - ? + + + + +

91 TSEBMOC )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - ? ?

02 ZELAZNOG )D( 37 57 17 39 - - + + + + + +

12 .L,HTIMS )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

22 DE YAL )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

32 ALLINOB )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

42 TSORF )D( 86 57 46 06 - - + + + + + +

52 NESTNEB )D( 14 52 05 76 - - ? - + - + -

62 YEMRA )R( 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - - -

72 ZITRO )D( 54 36 63 34 - - + - + + + +

82 ZEUGIRDOR )D( 86 36 17 77 - - + - + + + +

92 .G,NEERG )D( 95 57 05 07 + + + - + - + +

03 .B.E,NOSNHOJ )D( 37 36 97 08 - - + + + - + +

hatU1 NESNAH )R( 5 0 7 01 - - - - - - - ?

2 NOSEHTAM )D( 86 88 75 + + + + + + + -

3 NONNAC )R( 9 31 7 3 + ? - - - - - -

House Votes


KEY

3. H

OU

SE

SC

OR

ES


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

tnomreVLA SREDNAS )I( 59 88 001 001 + - + + + + + +

ainigriV1 NNAOJ,SIVAD )R( 41 31 41 - - - - - - - +

2 KCORHCS )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

3 TTOCS )D( 86 36 17 38 - - + + + ? + +

4 SEBROF )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

5 EDOOG )R( 9 31 7 31 - - - - - - - +

6 ETTALDOOG )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

7 ROTNAC )R( 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

8 SEMAJ,NAROM )D( 77 36 68 08 + + + + + - - -

9 REHCUOB )D( 77 57 97 07 + + ? + + - + +

01 FLOW )R( 41 52 7 71 + + - - - - - -

11 .T,SIVAD )R( 54 05 34 73 + + - + - + - -

notgnihsaW1 EELSNI )D( 59 88 001 001 + + + + + - + +

2 NESRAL )D( 37 83 39 - - + + - - + -

3 DRIAB )D( 19 57 001 78 + - + + + - + +

4 .D,SGNITSAH )R( 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -

5 TTUCREHTEN )R( 0 0 0 7 - - - - - - - -

6 SKCID )D( 77 36 68 08 + + + + + - - -

7 MC TTOMRED )D( 59 88 001 37 + - + + + + + +

8 NNUD )R( 81 31 12 7 - - - + - - - -

9 .A,HTIMS )D( 28 57 68 78 + + + + + + - -

ainigriVtseW1 NAHOLLOM )D( 14 36 92 34 + + + - - - + +

2 OTIPAC )R( 54 05 34 + + - + - - - +

3 LLAHAR )D( 68 001 97 07 + + + + + + + +

House Votes


KEY


Klam

ath

Farm

ing Le

ases

Trad

e &

Envi

ronm

ent

Righ

t To

Know

Yucca

Mou

ntain

CA C

oast

al Dr

illing

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n I

Farm

Con

serv

atio

n II

Defe

nse

Envi

ronm

enta

l Exe

mptio

ns

LCV SCORES

2001

106th

Con

gress

107th

Con

gress

%%%

2002

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

nisnocsiW1 NAYR )R( 72 52 92 72 + - - + - - - -

2 NIWDLAB )D( 001 001 001 78 + + + + + + + +

3 DNIK )D( 19 57 001 38 + + + + + ? - +

4 AKZCELK )D( 001 001 001 79 + + + + + + + +

5 TTERRAB )D( 59 88 001 79 + + + + + - + +

6 IRTEP )R( 05 05 05 72 + + - + - - + -

7 YEBO )D( 19 88 39 78 + + + + + - + +

8 .M,NEERG )R( 72 52 92 31 + - - + - - - -

9 RENNERBNESNES )R( 23 83 92 02 + + - + - - - -

gnimoyWLA NIBUC )R( 5 31 0 3 + - - - - - - -

EDITOR’S NOTE: A member’s score for the 107th Congress is calculated as a percentage of all the Scorecard votes for both 2001 and 2002, rather than as anaverage of each year’s scores.


Members of the Final Sessionof the 107th Congress

House LCV Scores for the 107th Congress

MEMBER SCORE (%) MEMBER SCORE (%) MEMBER SCORE (%)

Senate LCV Scores for the 107th Congress


Akaka, Daniel (D) HI 64

Allard, Wayne (R) CO 8

Allen, George (R) VA 0

Baucus, Max (D) MT 56

Bayh, Evan (D) IN 56

Bennett, Robert (R) UT 4

Biden, Joseph (D) DE 96

Bingaman, Jeff (D) NM 64

Bond, Christopher (R) MO 8

Boxer, Barbara (D) CA 96

Breaux, John (D) LA 20

Brownback, Sam (R) KS 4

Bunning, Jim (R) KY 0

Burns, Conrad (R) MT 8

Byrd, Robert (D) WV 56

Campbell, Ben Nighthorse (R) CO 8

Cantwell, Maria (D) WA 80

Carnahan, Jean (D) MO 60

Carper, Thomas (D) DE 60

Chafee, Lincoln (R) RI 68

Cleland, Max (D) GA 52

Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D) NY 88

Cochran, Thad (R) MS 8

Collins, Susan (R) ME 64

Conrad, Kent (D) ND 56

Corzine, Jon (D) NJ 96

Craig, Larry (R) ID 4

Crapo, Mike (R) ID 4

Daschle, Thomas (D) SD 68

Dayton, Mark (D) MN 92

DeWine, Mike (R) OH 12

Dodd, Christopher (D) CT 80

Domenici, Pete (R) NM 8

Dorgan, Byron (D) ND 56

Durbin, Richard (D) IL 92

Edwards, John (D) NC 68

Ensign, John (R) NV 36

Enzi, Michael (R) WY 0

Feingold, Russell (D) WI 84

Feinstein, Dianne (D) CA 80

Fitzgerald, Peter (R) IL 52

Frist, Bill (R) TN 0

Graham, Bob (D) FL 64

Gramm, Phil (R) TX 8

Grassley, Charles (R) IA 4

Gregg, Judd,(R) NH 44

Hagel, Chuck (R) NE 0

Harkin, Tom (D) IA 84

Hatch, Orrin (R) UT 4

Helms, Jesse (R) NC 0

Hollings, Ernest (D) SC 72

Hutchinson, Tim (R) AR 4

Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) TX 4

Inhofe, James (R) OK 0

Inouye, Daniel (D) HI 76

Jeffords, James (I) VT 76

Johnson, Tim (D) SD 52

Kennedy, Edward (D) MA 84

Kerry, John (D) MA 92

Kohl, Herbert (D) WI 64

Kyl, Jon (R) AZ 8

Landrieu, Mary (D) LA 20

Leahy, Patrick (D) VT 96

Levin, Carl (D)MI 72

Lieberman, Joseph (D) CT 88

Lincoln, Blanche (D) AR 32

Lott, Trent (R) MS 0

Lugar, Richard (R) IN 12

McCain, John (R) AZ 36

McConnell, Mitch (R) KY 4

Mikulski, Barbara (D) MD 88

Miller, Zell (D) GA 16

Murkowski, Frank (R) AK 0

Murray, Patty (D) WA 76

Nelson, Benjamin (D) NE 28

Nelson, Bill (D) FL 68

Nickles, Don (R) OK 0

Reed, Jack (D) RI 100

Reid, Harry (D) NV 92

Roberts, Pat (R) KS 0

Rockefeller, John (D) WV 80

Santorum, Rick (R) PA 4

Sarbanes, Paul (D) MD 96

Schumer, Charles (D) NY 92

Sessions, Jeff (R) AL 4

Shelby, Richard (R) AL 4

Smith, Gordon (R) OR 24

Smith, Bob (R) NH 28

Snowe, Olympia (R) ME 72

Specter, Arlen (R) PA 52

Stabenow, Debbie (D) MI 80

Stevens, Ted (R) AK 8

Thomas, Craig (R) WY 0

Thompson, Fred (R) TN 12

Thurmond, Strom (R) SC 4

Torricelli, Robert (D) NJ 80

Voinovich, George (R) OH 0

Warner, John (R) VA 16

Wellstone, Paul (D) MN 100

Wyden, Ron (D) OR 80

Abercrombie, Neil (D) HI-1 86

Ackerman, Gary (D) NY-5 100

Aderholt, Robert (R) AL-4 5

Akin, Todd (R) MO-2 0

Allen, Thomas (D) ME-1 91

Andrews, Robert (D) NJ-1 95

Armey, Richard (R) TX-26 0

Baca, Joe (D) CA-42 68

Bachus, Spencer (R) AL-6 5

Baird, Brian (D) WA-3 91

Baker, Richard (R) LA-6 0

Baldacci, John (D) ME-2 91

Baldwin, Tammy (D) WI-2 100

Ballenger, Cass (R) NC-10 0

Barcia, James (D) MI-5 64

Barr, Bob (R) GA-7 9

Barrett, Thomas (D) WI-5 95

Bartlett, Roscoe (R) MD-6 36

Barton, Joe (R) TX-6 5

Bass, Charles (R) NH-2 45

Becerra, Xavier (D) CA-30 95

Bentsen, Ken (D) TX-25 41

Bereuter, Doug (R) NE-1 18

Berkley, Shelley (D) NV-1 86

Berman, Howard (D) CA-26 86

Berry, Marion (D) AR-1 41

Biggert, Judy (R) IL-13 27

4. IN

DE

X



Bilirakis, Michael (R) FL-9 36

Bishop, Sanford (D) GA-2 45

Blagojevich, Rod (D) IL-5 77

Blumenauer, Earl (D) OR-3 91

Blunt, Roy (R) MO-7 0

Boehlert, Sherwood (R) NY-23 68

Boehner, John (R) OH-8 0

Bonilla, Henry (R) TX-23 0

Bonior, David (D) MI-10 82

Bono, Mary (R) CA-44 9

Boozman, John (R) AR-3 0

Borski, Robert (D) PA-3 86

Boswell, Leonard (D) IA-3 73

Boucher, Rick (D) VA-9 77

Boyd, Allen (D) FL-2 59

Brady, Kevin (R) TX-8 0

Brady, Robert (D) PA-1 73

Brown, Corrine (D) FL-3 73

Brown, Henry (R) SC-1 5

Brown, Sherrod (D) OH-13 95

Bryant, Ed (R) TN-7 0

Burr, Richard (R) NC-5 5

Burton, Dan (R) IN-6 0

Buyer, Steve (R) IN-5 0

Callahan, Sonny (R) AL-1 0

Calvert, Ken (R) CA-43 9

Camp, Dave (R) MI-4 9

Cannon, Chris (R) UT-3 9

Cantor, Eric (R) VA-7 0

Capito, Shelley Moore (D) WV-2 45

Capps, Lois (D) CA-22 95

Capuano, Michael (D) MA-8 95

Cardin, Benjamin (D) MD-3 91

Carson, Brad (D) OK-2 32

Carson, Julia (D) IN-10 91

Castle, Michael (R) DE-AL 64

Chabot, Steve (R) OH-1 18

Chambliss, Saxby (R) GA-8 0

Clay, William Lacy (D) MO-1 82

Clayton, Eva (D) NC-1 82

Clement, Bob (D) TN-5 73

Clyburn, James (D) SC-6 68

Coble, Howard (R) NC-6 9

Collins, Mac (R) GA-3 9

Combest, Larry (R) TX-19 0

Condit, Gary (D) CA-18 82

Conyers, John (D) MI-14 91

Cooksey, John (R) LA-5 0

Costello, Jerry (D) IL-12 59

Cox, Christopher (R) CA-47 14

Coyne, William (D) PA-14 95

Cramer, Robert “Bud” (D) AL-5 36

Crane, Philip (R) IL-8 5

Crenshaw, Ander (R) FL-4 5

Crowley, Joseph (D) NY-7 91

Cubin, Barbara (R) WY-AL 5

Culberson, John (R) TX-7 5

Cummings, Elijah (D) MD-7 91

Cunningham, Randy “Duke” (R) CA-51 5

Davis, Danny (D) IL-7 91

Davis, Jim (D) FL-11 77

Davis, Jo Ann (R) VA-1 14

Davis, Susan (D) CA-49 91

Davis, Tom (R) VA-11 45

Deal, Nathan (R) GA-9 5

DeFazio, Peter (D) OR-4 95

DeGette, Diana (D) CO-1 100

Delahunt, William (D) MA-10 91

DeLauro, Rosa (D) CT-3 91

DeLay, Tom (R) TX-22 0

DeMint, Jim (R) SC-4 9

Deutsch, Peter (D) FL-20 95

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R) FL-21 18

Dicks, Norman (D) WA-6 77

Dingell, John (D) MI-16 82

Doggett, Lloyd (D) TX-10 95

Dooley, Calvin (D) CA-20 36

Doolittle, John (R) CA-4 5

Doyle, Michael (D) PA-18 68

Dreier, David (R) CA-28 5

Duncan, John (R) TN-2 18

Dunn, Jennifer (R) WA-8 18

Edwards, Chet (D) TX-11 41

Ehlers, Vernon (R) MI-3 59

Ehrlich, Robert (R) MD-2 27

Emerson, Jo Ann (R) MO-8 5

Engel, Eliot (D) NY-17 95

English, Phil (R) PA-21 32

Eshoo, Anna (D) CA-14 100

Etheridge, Bob (D) NC-2 64

Evans, Lane (D) IL-17 86

Everett, Terry (R) AL-2 0

Farr, Sam (D) CA-17 100

Fattah, Chaka (D) PA-2 86

Ferguson, Mike (R) NJ-7 59

Filner, Bob (D) CA-50 95

Flake, Jeff (R) AZ-1 14

Fletcher, Ernie (R) KY-6 0

Foley, Mark (R) FL-16 23

Forbes, Randy (R) VA-4 0

Ford, Jr., Harold (D) TN-9 73

Fossella, Vito (R) NY-13 27

Frank, Barney (D) MA-4 100

Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R) NJ-11 55

Frost, Martin (D) TX-24 68

Gallegly, Elton (R) CA-23 18

Ganske, Greg (R) IA-4 45

Gekas, George (R) PA-17 5

Gephardt, Richard (D) MO-3 91

Gibbons, Jim (R) NV-2 9

Gilchrest, Wayne (R) MD-1 36

Gillmor, Paul (R) OH-5 14

Gilman, Benjamin (R) NY-20 73

Gonzalez, Charles (D) TX-20 73

Goode, Virgil (R) VA-5 9

Goodlatte, Bob (R) VA-6 0

Gordon, Bart (D) TN-6 68

Goss, Porter (R) FL-14 27

Graham, Lindsey (R) SC-3 18

Granger, Kay (R) TX-12 5

Graves, Sam (R) MO-6 0

Green, Gene (D) TX-29 59

Green, Mark (R) WI-8 27

Greenwood, James (R) PA-8 59

Grucci, Felix (R) NY-1 14

Gutierrez, Luis (D) IL-4 86

Gutknecht, Gil (R) MN-1 5

Hall, Ralph (D) TX-4 5

Hall, Tony (D) OH-3 73

Hansen, James (R) UT-1 5

Harman, Jane (D) CA-36 91

Hart, Melissa (R) PA-4 14

Hastert, Dennis (R) IL-14

Hastings, Alcee (D) FL-23 73

Hastings, Doc (R) WA-4 0

Hayes, Robin (R) NC-8 5

Hayworth, J.D. (R) AZ-6 0

Hefley, Joel (R) CO-5 14

Herger, Wally (R) CA-2 0

Hill, Baron (D) IN-9 45

Hilleary, Van (R) TN-4 5

Hilliard, Earl (D) AL-7 64

Hinchey, Maurice (D) NY-26 95

Hinojosa, Ruben (D) TX-15 68

Hobson, David (R) OH-7 9

Hoeffel, Joseph (D) PA-13 91

Hoekstra, Peter (R) MI-2 32

Holden, Tim (D) PA-6 64

Holt, Rush (D) NJ-12 100

Honda, Michael (D) CA-15 100

Hooley, Darlene (D) OR-5 86

Horn, Stephen (R) CA-38 45

Hostettler, John (R) IN-8 23

Houghton, Amo (R) NY-31 36

Hoyer, Steny (D) MD-5 86

Hulshof, Kenny (R) MO-9 5

Hunter, Duncan (R) CA-52 14

Hyde, Henry (R) IL-6 14

Inslee, Jay (D) WA-1 95


MEMBER SCORE (%) MEMBER SCORE (%)MEMBER SCORE (%)

4. IN

DE

X

Isakson, Johnny (R) GA-6 14

Israel, Steve (D) NY-2 77

Issa, Darrell (R) CA-48 5

Istook, Ernest (R) OK-5 5

Jackson, Jr., Jesse (D) IL-2 100

Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D) TX-18 68

Jefferson, William (D) LA-2 55

Jenkins, William (R) TN-1 0

John, Christopher (D) LA-7 9

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D) TX-30 73

Johnson, Nancy (R) CT-6 73

Johnson, Sam (R) TX-3 5

Johnson, Timothy V. (R) IL-15 50

Jones, Walter (R) NC-3 23

Kanjorski, Paul (D) PA-11 73

Kaptur, Marcy (D) OH-9 77

Keller, Ric (R) FL-8 9

Kelly, Sue (R) NY-19 77

Kennedy, Mark (R) MN-2 32

Kennedy, Patrick (D) RI-1 95

Kerns, Brian (R) IN-7 14

Kildee, Dale (D) MI-9 86

Kilpatrick, Carolyn (D) MI-15 82

Kind, Ron (D) WI-3 91

King, Peter (R) NY-3 23

Kingston, Jack (R) GA-1 0

Kirk, Mark (R) IL-10 59

Kleczka, Jerry (D) WI-4 100

Knollenberg, Joe (R) MI-11 0

Kolbe, Jim (R) AZ-5 9

Kucinich, Dennis (D) OH-10 95

LaFalce, John (D) NY-29 91

LaHood, Ray (R) IL-18 36

Lampson, Nick (D) TX-9 50

Langevin, James (D) RI-2 95

Lantos, Tom (D) CA-12 91

Larsen, Rick (D) WA-2 73

Larson, John (D) CT-1 86

Latham, Tom (R) IA-5 14

LaTourette, Steven (R) OH-19 23

Leach, James (R) IA-1 59

Lee, Barbara (D) CA-9 100

Levin, Sander (D) MI-12 86

Lewis, Jerry (R) CA-40 14

Lewis, John (D) GA-5 77

Lewis, Ron (R) KY-2 0

Linder, John (R) GA-11 5

Lipinski, William (D) IL-3 36

LoBiondo, Frank (R) NJ-2 77

Lofgren, Zoe (D) CA-16 95

Lowey, Nita (D) NY-18 95

Lucas, Frank (R) OK-6 0

Lucas, Ken (D) KY-4 18

Luther, Bill (D) MN-6 100

Lynch, Stephen (D) MA-9 100

Maloney, Carolyn (D) NY-14 95

Maloney, James (D) CT-5 86

Manzullo, Donald (R) IL-16 9

Markey, Edward (D) MA-7 95

Mascara, Frank (D) PA-20 55

Matheson, Jim (D) UT-2 68

Matsui, Robert (D) CA-5 100

McCarthy, Carolyn (D) NY-4 86

McCarthy, Karen (D) MO-5 95

McCollum, Betty (D) MN-4 95

McCrery, Jim (R) LA-4 0

McDermott, Jim (D) WA-7 95

McGovern, James (D) MA-3 100

McHugh, John (R) NY-24 36

McInnis, Scott (R) CO-3 18

McIntyre, Mike (D) NC-7 64

McKeon, Howard “Buck” (R) CA-25 5

McKinney, Cynthia (D) GA-4 95

McNulty, Michael (D) NY-21 100

Meehan, Martin (D) MA-5 77

Meek, Carrie (D) FL-17 73

Meeks, Gregory (D) NY-6 86

Menendez, Robert (D) NJ-13 95

Mica, John (R) FL-7 5

Millender-McDonald, Juanita (D) CA-3795

Miller, Dan (R) FL-13 23

Miller, Gary (R) CA-41 5

Miller, George (D) CA-7 100

Miller, Jeff (R) FL-1 22

Mink, Patsy (D) HI-2 86

Mollohan, Alan (D) WV-1 41

Moore, Dennis (D) KS-3 82

Moran, James (D) VA-8 77

Moran, Jerry (R) KS-1 0

Morella, Constance (R) MD-8 86

Murtha, John (D) PA-12 41

Myrick, Sue (R) NC-9 14

Nadler, Jerrold (D) NY-8 86

Napolitano, Grace (D) CA-34 95

Neal, Richard (D) MA-2 77

Nethercutt, George (R) WA-5 0

Ney, Robert (R) OH-18 23

Northup, Anne (R) KY-3 9

Norwood, Charlie (R) GA-10 9

Nussle, Jim (R) IA-2 23

Oberstar, James (D) MN-8 82

Obey, David (D) WI-7 91

Olver, John (D) MA-1 91

Ortiz, Solomon (D) TX-27 45

Osborne, Thomas (R) NE-3 0

Ose, Doug (R) CA-3 18

Otter, C.L. “Butch” (R) ID-1 5

Owens, Major (D) NY-11 95

Oxley, Michael (R) OH-4 9

Pallone, Frank (D) NJ-6 100

Pascrell, Bill (D) NJ-8 91

Pastor, Ed (D) AZ-2 82

Paul, Ron (R) TX-14 41

Payne, Donald (D) NJ-10 95

Pelosi, Nancy (D) CA-8 95

Pence, Mike (R) IN-2 5

Peterson, Collin (D) MN-7 45

Peterson, John (R) PA-5 5

Petri, Thomas (R) WI-6 50

Phelps, David (D) IL-19 45

Pickering, Charles “Chip” (R) MS-3 0

Pitts, Joseph (R) PA-16 9

Platts, Todd (R) PA-19 27

Pombo, Richard (R) CA-11 9

Pomeroy, Earl (D) ND-AL 68

Portman, Rob (R) OH-2 18

Price, David (D) NC-4 82

Pryce, Deborah (R) OH-15 18

Putnam, Adam (R) FL-12 9

Quinn, Jack (R) NY-30 41

Radanovich, George (R) CA-19 5

Rahall, Nick (D) WV-3 86

Ramstad, Jim (R) MN-3 73

Rangel, Charles (D) NY-15 95

Regula, Ralph (R) OH-16 18

Rehberg, Dennis (R) MT-AL 0

Reyes, Silvestre (D) TX-16 55

Reynolds, Thomas (R) NY-27 18

Riley, Bob (R) AL-3 0

Rivers, Lynn (D) MI-13 95

Rodriguez, Ciro (D) TX-28 68

Roemer, Tim (D) IN-3 86

Rogers, Harold (R) KY-5 5

Rogers, Mike (R) MI-8 5

Rohrabacher, Dana (R) CA-45 14

Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R) FL-18 18

Ross, Mike (D) AR-4 41

Rothman, Steven (D) NJ-9 100

Roukema, Marge (R) NJ-5 55

Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D) CA-33 95

Royce, Edward (R) CA-39 9

Rush, Bobby (D) IL-1 64

Ryan, Paul (R) WI-1 27

Ryun, Jim (R) KS-2 0

Sabo, Martin (D) MN-5 86

Sanchez, Loretta (D) CA-46 100

Sanders, Bernard (I) VT-AL 95

Sandlin, Max (D) TX-1 36

Sawyer, Tom (D) OH-14 95


Help Others “Know The Score” on the Environment


NE

S2

11/0

2

YES! I want to help LCV continue its vitally important work to shape a pro-environment Congress.

❏ I am renewing my membership. ❏ I am joining as a new member.

❏ I am making an additional contribution.

❏ $25 ❏ $50 ❏ $100 ❏ Other $ __________

Name ___________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________ State _____ Zip __________

Sign me up for the Weekly Insider for the latest on LCV’s work, environmental

politics and what I can do the speak up for the environment.

My e-mail address is ______________________________________

48 League of Conservation Voters

Saxton, Jim (R) NJ-3 59

Schaffer, Bob (R) CO-4 0

Schakowsky, Janice (D) IL-9 100

Schiff, Adam (D) CA-27 95

Schrock, Edward (R) VA-2 0

Scott, Robert (D) VA-3 68

Sensenbrenner, James (R) WI-9 32

Serrano, Jose (D) NY-16 82

Sessions, Pete (R) TX-5 0

Shadegg, John (R) AZ-4 0

Shaw, Clay (R) FL-22 27

Shays, Christopher (R) CT-4 73

Sherman, Brad (D) CA-24 95

Sherwood, Don (R) PA-10 14

Shimkus, John (R) IL-20 0

Shows, Ronnie (D) MS-4 23

Shuster, Bill (R) PA-9 10

Simmons, Rob (R) CT-2 64

Simpson, Michael (R) ID-2 0

Skeen, Joe (R) NM-2 0

Skelton, Ike (D) MO-4 41

Slaughter, Louise (D) NY-28 91

Smith, Adam (D) WA-9 82

Smith, Christopher (R) NJ-4 73

Smith, Lamar (R) TX-21 0

Smith, Nick (R) MI-7 9

Snyder, Vic (D) AR-2 64

Solis, Hilda (D) CA-31 100

Souder, Mark (R) IN-4 5

Spratt, John (D) SC-5 68

Stark, Fortney “Pete” (D) CA-13 82

Stearns, Cliff (R) FL-6 27

Stenholm, Charles (D) TX-17 14

Strickland, Ted (D) OH-6 86

Stump, Bob (R) AZ-3 0

Stupak, Bart (D) MI-1 77

Sullivan, John (R) OK-1 0

Sununu, John (R) NH-1 36

Sweeney, John (R) NY-22 36

Tancredo, Thomas (R) CO-6 14

Tanner, John (D) TN-8 32

Tauscher, Ellen (D) CA-10 86

Tauzin, W.J. “Billy” (R) LA-3 0

Taylor, Charles (R) NC-11 9

Taylor, Gene (D) MS-5 45

Terry, Lee (R) NE-2 0

Thomas, William (R) CA-21 5

Thompson, Bennie (D) MS-2 64

Thompson, Mike (D) CA-1 91

Thornberry, Mac (R) TX-13 0

Thune, John (R) SD-AL 9

Thurman, Karen (D) FL-5 77

Tiahrt, Todd (R) KS-4 0

Tiberi, Patrick (R) OH-12 9

Tierney, John (D) MA-6 100

Toomey, Pat (R) PA-15 14

Towns, Edolphus (D) NY-10 77

Traficant, James (D) OH-17 10

Tubbs Jones, Stephanie (D) OH-11 82

Turner, Jim (D) TX-2 32

Udall, Mark (D) CO-2 100

Udall, Tom (D) NM-3 100

Upton, Fred (R) MI-6 36

Velazquez, Nydia (D) NY-12 100

Visclosky, Peter (D) IN-1 59

Vitter, David (R) LA-1 0

Walden, Greg (R) OR-2 5

Walsh, James (R) NY-25 50

Wamp, Zach (R) TN-3 9

Waters, Maxine (D) CA-35 100

Watkins, Wes (R) OK-3 5

Watson, Diane (D) CA-32 95

Watt, Melvin (D) NC-12 77

Watts, J.C. (R) OK-4 0

Waxman, Henry (D) CA-29 91

Weiner, Anthony (D) NY-9 100

Weldon, Curt (R) PA-7 50

Weldon, Dave (R) FL-15 23

Weller, Jerry (R) IL-11 18

Wexler, Robert (D) FL-19 100

Whitfield, Ed (R) KY-1 0

Wicker, Roger (R) MS-1 0

Wilson, Heather (R) NM-1 9

Wilson, Joe (R) SC-2 25

Wolf, Frank (R) VA-10 14

Woolsey, Lynn (D) CA-6 95

Wu, David (D) OR-1 100

Wynn, Albert (D) MD-4 86

Young, C.W. “Bill” (R) FL-10 27

Young, Don (R) AK-AL 9

All dues and contributions to LCV are not tax-deductible either as charitable contributions or as business expenses. LCV cannot accept corporate,foundation or business checks. Please make your personal check payable to "LCV" and return it with this form to: LCV, 1920 L Street, NW, Suite 800,Washington, DC, 20036. Phone (202) 785-8683; Fax (202) 835-0491. E-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.lcv.org.

LCV STAFF

Deb CallahanPresident

Amy ConroyChief Operations Officer

Anne Saer-DriscollChief Financial Officer

Denise RyanExec. Asst. to Pres.& Liaison to the Boards

Allyson WoodsOperations Manager

Herlyth PaulBookkeeper

Sharon SmithBookkeeper

Shirley SandersReceptionist

Betsy LoylessPolitical Director

Mary MinetteLegislative Director

Amy KurtzCampaigns Director

Barbara ElkusSenior Policy Advisor

Harrison SchmittPolitical Research Associate

Elizabeth GoltryPolitical Action Associate

Vivien BraslauPolitical Associate

Allison HerrenPolitical Intern

Chris BauerPolitical Intern

Eric JacobsonPolitical Intern

Erin SmithPolitical Intern

Wendy Solmssen SommerVice President for Development

Keith GabyDirector of External Affairs

Betsy CarltonDirector of Marketing andMembership

Treacy KirkpatrickSenior Manager, Membership

Anna EkindjianAssociate Director of IndividualGiving

Ryan CreeWeb & Publications Associate

Kate McGinnisDevelopment Assistant

Mandy RobinsDevelopment Assistant

Scott StoermerDirector of Communications

Abby JonesPress Secretary

Dan VicuñaDeputy Press Secretary

Daniel LewisCommunications Assistant

Lara CaldwellCommunications Intern

LE

AG

UE

OF

CO

NS

ER

VA

TIO

N V

OT

ER

S

1920 L Street, NW

, Suite 800W

ashington, D

C 20036

Phone: 202.785.8683lcv.org

This pub

lication was p

rinted on an alcohol-free p

ress with soy-b

ased inks on recycled

stock.recycled

pap

er

Scorecard/newscorecard.lcv.org › sites › scorecard.lcv.org › files ›...

Documents

Transcript of Scorecard/newscorecard.lcv.org › sites › scorecard.lcv.org › files ›...