|
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, clearcutting
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
Governorsā Association, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorneys General
from 37 states, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conferences
of Mayors and the U.S. 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 nationās 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 Presidentās 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 rangelands
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
Citizensā 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 publicās
best source of information on toxics. A study conducted by Congressā
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 Childrenās 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 scientistsā 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 wonāt 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. Loweyās (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
|