| 1. Endangered Species/Stop Endangered Species Act Flood Waiver: Following on the heels of a disastrous flood season in California, Reps. Pombo (R-CA) and Herger (R-CA) introduced H.R. 478, the "Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997," to exempt nearly all flood control activities from compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Despite the lack of credible evidence, Reps. Pombo and Herger blamed the ESA for delays in levee maintenance. This legislation would have exempted virtually any project relating to flood control, including levees, canals, dredging, draining wetlands, clear-cutting riparian forests and even massive dam projects, from the requirement that these projects consider and minimize impacts to endangered and threatened species. Rep. Boehlert (R-NY) offered an amendment that significantly narrowed H.R. 478 to exempt for one year flood control projects from the ESA in federally declared disaster areas or when there was a substantial threat to human life. The amendment was adopted 227-196 on May 7, 1997. H.R. 478 was pulled from the floor by its supporters before it came to a final vote. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
2. Environmental Preservation/Stop Weakening of Land Use Protections: Rep. Gallegly (R-CA) introduced a bill, written with assistance from the National Association of Homebuilders, that would allow developers to sue cities and counties in federal courts over local land use disputes. This bill would circumvent local land use procedures and give developers a big stick to intimidate local governments who do not have the resources to fight expensive federal lawsuits. This bill would also greatly increase the burden on federal courts. H.R. 1534 was opposed by the National Governors' Association, the US Dept. of Justice, Attorneys General from 37 states, the National League of Cities, the US Conferences of Mayors and the US Judicial Conference (on behalf of federal courts). Adopted 248-178 on October 22, 1997. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO
3. Environmental Defense/Stop Anti-Environmental Budget Amendments: Special interest lobbyists and their allies in Congress increasingly attach legislative attacks on environmental protections to must-pass appropriations bills, rather than proposing these attacks as stand-alone legislation. The VA-HUD Appropriations bill of 1998 contained a number of "riders" in the legislative report which would, among other things, prevent the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments, stall implementation of our pesticide safety laws, prevent adequate cleanup of old nuclear facilities, interfere with efforts to control air pollution in our national parks, and block controls of dangerous mercury air pollution. Rep. Waxman introduced an amendment, H.R. 4194, to strip the riders out of the appropriations bill. The amendment was rejected 176-243 on July 23, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
4. Environmental Defense/Prevent Hidden Anti-Environmental Amendments: Because they wish to shield their actions from public scrutiny, special interests and their Congressional allies attach anti-environmental provisions to unrelated legislation. In the last Congress, special interests attached several anti-environmental provisions to "must-pass" legislation to fund emergency spending for troops in Bosnia. These provisions would: pressure the Forest Service into building new roads in roadless areas in our national forests, delay new rules to help ensure that taxpayers get their fair share of royalties for oil drilled on public lands, and allow a multi-lane commuter highway to be built through the Petroglyphs National Monument in New Mexico. Rep. Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment that would guarantee Members of Congress the right to openly debate and independently vote on anti-environmental provisions. This would make it more difficult to pass major legislation with unrelated and undebated anti-environment riders. The amendment was rejected 190-221 on May 19, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
5. National Monuments/Oppose New Hurdles to National Monuments: The Antiquities Act has been essential for protecting our nation's natural heritage by authorizing the President to designate significant federal lands as national monuments. Since enactment, 13 Presidents, from both political parties, have used the Act to create 105 national monuments, including Denali, Joshua Tree and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. H.R. 1127, introduced by Rep. Hansen (R-UT) would severely limit the President's ability to immediately protect threatened federal lands and resources. H.R. 1127 passed 229-197 on October 7, 1997. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO
6. National Forests/Cut Timber Industry Road-Building Subsidy: The US Forest Service encourages logging in our national forests through a variety of mechanisms including building roads so that the timber industry can gain access to national forests, and selling the trees for less than the cost of administering the timber sale program. There are currently more than 440,000 miles of roads crisscrossing our National Forests ö more than ten times the size of the entire Federal Interstate Highway System. New road-building causes soil erosion and stream sedimentation, degrades water quality, and fragments wildlife habitat. The House was scheduled to vote on an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill offered by Reps. Porter (R-IL), Kennedy (D-MA), Kasich (R-OH), Furse (D-OR), Miller (R-FL), Minge (D-MN), and Cook (R-UT) to cut up to $92 million in timber road-building subsidies. A much weaker, industry-supported substitute amendment was offered by Rep. Dicks (D-WA) and was adopted by a 211-209 vote on July 10,1997. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO
7. National Forests/Stop Increased Logging: The US Forest Service subsidizes the destruction of our rapidly dwindling National Forests by selling off our trees to the timber industry at prices that do not even cover the basic costs of the timber sales program. As a result, taxpayers have lost $2 billion over the last six years, and logging has destroyed wildlife habitat, polluted rivers necessary for fish and for drinking water, and caused expensive and deadly mudslides. On March 27, 1998, House Agricultural Committee Chair Bob Smith (R-OR) offered H.R. 2515, the so-called "Forest Recovery and Protection Act," which would have increased subsidized logging under the guise of "forest recovery" and, for the first time ever, permanently authorized below-cost timber sales. The Smith bill was defeated 181-201 on March 27, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO
8. Public Lands/Cut Grazing Subsidy for Large Ranchers: Current federal policy for grazing on public lands is worse than a simple taxpayer handout to ranchers. More than two-thirds of our federally owned range lands have been over-grazed, eroded, or otherwise degraded. Below-cost grazing fees cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year. The House passed H.R. 2493, introduced by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R-OR), which would perpetuate below-cost grazing, discourage permittee stewardship and increase program costs. An amendment offered by Rep. Klug (R-WI) that would have significantly raised the federal fees to those charged in the state was rejected by a vote of 205-219 on October 30, 1997. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
9. Clean Air/Overturn Clean Air Health Protections: In July 1997, the EPA issued regulations under the Clean Air Act to protect public health from ozone (smog) and fine particulates (soot). EPA estimates that the new standards will prevent 15,000 premature deaths, 350,000 cases of aggravated asthma and tens of thousands of hospital admissions, doctor visits and work absences each year. H.R. 1984, introduced by Reps. Klink (D-PA), Upton (R-MI) and Boucher (D-VA), was an effort to overturn the new standards for smog and soot and place a four year moratorium on EPA setting new standards. Co-sponsorship of H.R. 1984 is an anti-public interest action.
10. Toxic Chemical Threats/Expand Citizens' Right to Know: EPA estimates that there are 80,000 synthetic chemicals on the market today. Fewer than one percent of these are covered by the Community Right to Know Act, the public's best source of information on toxics. A study conducted by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment estimated that due to the short list of chemicals and industries covered, the Right to Know Act fails to inform the public about 95 percent of toxic pollution. The Children's Environmental Protection and Right to Know Act (H.R. 1636), introduced by Reps. Waxman (D-CA) and Saxton (R-NJ), would fill in many of these gaps, requiring polluters to report on toxic chemical use in products, the workplace and neighborhoods. The bill will also require polluters to report on some of the most toxic substances known to science such as lead, mercury and dioxins and require labels on products that contain chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm or nerve damage. Co-sponsorship of H.R. 1636 is a pro-public interest action.
11. Global Warming/Stop Ban on EPA Global Warming Education: The threat of catastrophic global warming appears to be closer than we once believed. 1998 was the hottest year ever on record, bringing devastating extreme weather that is consistent with scientists' predictions of the impacts of global warming. Despite this imminent threat, Rep. Knollenberg (R-MI) introduced a bill that would have: 1) prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from educating the public about global warming; 2) endangered cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; and 3) carved out an exception for the main global warming pollutant from all environmental laws. Because he could not get enough support to pass his bill on its own merits, Rep. Knollenberg attached the first two parts of the bill as a rider on the EPA funding bill. Rep. Obey (D-WI) offered an amendment to this bill which ensured that the EPA could continue public education and protected energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The amendment was adopted 226-198 on July 23, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
12. Energy Efficiency/Increase Funding for Energy Efficiency: Energy efficiency programs reduce pollution, saves businesses and individuals money, and protects our wild places from development for coal and oil. Each year the Federal government allocates a certain amount of money to promote energy efficiency. Part of this funding goes to help low income families weatherize their homes so that they won't have to spend extra money on fuel, or suffer exposure to harsh temperatures. On July 21, 998, Rep. Fox (R-PA) and Rep. Skaggs (D-CO) proposed an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill which would have increased this funding. The amendment was rejected 212-213 on July 21, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
13. Coal Subsidies/Cut Federal Coal Subsidy: Coal is the most polluting of all fossil energy sources. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide and mercury emissions in the US Neither carbon dioxide nor mercury can be substantially reduced from coal-fired power plants at any feasible cost. Nonetheless, the Department of Energy has allocated more than $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars toward the so-called "Clean Coal Technology Program" (CCTP). This program is designed to encourage private companies to develop cleaner coal-burning technologies but has been mismanaged. A 1991 General Accounting Office study found that a large portion of the CCTP projects had either been terminated within a few years of being funded, experienced substantial cost increases, or funded technologies which were less effective than those already available. Reps. Klug (R-WI), Miller (R-FL) and Royce (R-CA) offered an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to cut $292 million from the program. The amendment was rejected 173-243 on July 11, 1997. Although this amendment was rejected, Congressional committees did cut $100 million from the program. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
14. Nuclear Waste/Stop Dangerous Nuclear Waste Transport: H.R. 1270, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1998 would needlessly mandate the transportation of highly radioactive waste through 43 states. This would put millions of Americans at risk; preempt state and local laws and federal laws including the Safe Drinking Water Act; and set a radiation standard for a permanent repository that would result in one excess cancer death per 286 exposed individuals. H.R. 1270 was passed 307-120 on October 30, 1997. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO
15. Tobacco Subsidies/Cut Tobacco Industry Giveaway: While the US government spends nearly $200 million each year warning Americans about the deadly effects of tobacco use, it also subsidizes tobacco farming. Although each year, the federal government provides crop insurance guarantees on only about 65 of over 1600 crops grown by American farmers, tobacco, the only product with no known safe level of use, is one of the crops subsidized by the taxpayer. Rep. Lower's (D-NY) amendment to H.R. 2160, the Agricultural Appropriations bill, would prohibit government funds from being used for tobacco crop insurance or non-insured tobacco crop assistance. The estimated $34 million per year savings from this prohibition would have been used to provide rural development and rural health funding. The amendment was rejected 209-216 on July 24, 1997. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
16. Consumer Protection/Prevent Undisclosed Sale of Rebuilt "Lemon" Cars: For the last several years, the auto industry has sought passage of legislation ostensibly to establish a national title disclosure system for cars that had been wrecked and rebuilt. Yet, the industry proposals would allow thousands of cars that had been wrecked to be re-sold without any title labels, leaving consumers in the dark. S. 852, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), would have exempted thousands of wrecked cars annually (including cars "totaled" by insurance companies) from being labeled as salvage vehicles. The bill was supported by car dealers but opposed by consumer groups and state attorneys general. Before it passed the Senate, the Lott bill was improved by amendments sponsored by Senate consumer champions Feinstein (D-CA), Levin (D-MI) and Bryan (D-NV). However in the House, Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley (R-VA) used a parliamentary maneuver to bring the unamended anti-consumer Senate proposal to the House floor instead. Consumer champion Rep. Markey (D-MA) led an unsuccessful House floor attempt to defeat final passage of the Lott proposal. The bill was passed 271-133 on October 10, 1998 (2/3rds vote needed under suspension of rules). PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO
17. Higher Education/Increase Student Loans and Strengthen Grants: The 1965 Higher Education Act (HEA) was passed to provide equal access to postsecondary education for all Americans regardless of their economic circumstances. Federal support for higher education has been an essential building block of our society and is vital for the health of the democracy. Over the last two decades, college costs have soared, the spending value of the Pell grant has been cut in half, and loan debt has more than doubled. H.R. 6, the reauthorization of the HEA introduced by Representatives Goodling (R-PA), Clay (D-MO), McKeon (R-CA) and Kildee (D-MI) provided some significant relief to college students by strengthening the Pell Grant and State Student Incentive Grant (now the LEAP Grant) and by lowering the interest rate on federal student loans. The interest rate reduction, established in prior law, was reformulated to maintain an interest rate reduction to students by .8 of a percent while also ensuring the continued availability of private capital in the federal loan programs. Student borrowers over the next five years will save an estimated $11 billion from the lower interest rate. PIRG supported the version of H.R. 6 passed on May 6, 1998 by a vote of 414-4. PIRG did not support the bill as reported out of the House and Senate conference committee due to several provisions that were added that denied the lower interest rate for borrowers who consolidate their loans, weakened a Senate provision to establish an Office of Student Loan Ombudsman, and increased subsidies to lenders at the expense of student borrowers who end up in Bankruptcy. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
18. Campaign Finance Reform/Ban "Soft Money" Contributions: Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced a bill to enact modest reforms in the federal campaign finance system in the 105th Congress. That bill did nothing to limit the outrageous amounts that special interests can give directly to candidates, but it did prevent corporations and very wealthy donors from giving unregulated and unlimited "soft money" contributions to political parties. During a lengthy and grueling debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, the Shays-Meehan bill withstood numerous attempts to weaken it and eventually received more votes than numerous alternative bills, including a weaker version introduced by House Freshman Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) and Tom Allen (D-ME). The final version of the bill passed 252-179 on August 6, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: YES
19. Campaign Finance Reform/Stop Increases in Contribution Limits: During the debate on campaign finance reform, Rep. Edward Whitfield (R-KY) offered an amendment to the Shays-Meehan bill that would have increased the current limit on contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. This would only further increase the amounts that candidates raise from wealthy donors, and give special interests even more influence in who runs for office and who wins elections. The amendment was rejected 102-315 on July 31, 1998. PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO |