Greenbacks For Green Votes 2

May 1, 1996 * By Bob Adams, Project Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs

Greenbacks for Green Votes 2 is a side-by-side comparison of PAC (political action committee) contributions made to congressional campaigns by The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and the recipient's support for the environmental movement's agenda, as measured by the League's own National Environmental Scorecard. This Greenbacks analysis of the House of Representatives for the first session of the 104th Congress was compiled using Federal Election Commission reports and the League of Conservation Voters' National Environmental Scorecard.

The National Environmental Scorecard analyzes what it considers to be the twelve most important votes taken during the first session of the 104th Congress affecting the environment. The individual member's record is averaged into an "LCV Score," which is the percentage of votes in favor of the green agenda.

Greenbacks for Green Votes 2 does not challenge the right of political action committees to support candidates for public office. However, the public has a right to know to whom PACs contribute, and how closely votes by recipients of these funds match the stated agenda of the contributor, in this case the LCV. Only then can citizens determine for themselves if congressional supporters of the regulatory agenda are motivated by conviction or captive to special interests.

The League of Conservation Voters

The League of Conservation Voters, founded in 1970 by Friends of the Earth, is the largest of two environmental political action committees. A former president, Bruce Babbitt, who is now secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, once described the LCV's mission in a League Scorecard of candidates as to "identify our enemies and drive them into oblivion." This special interest group, based in Washington, D.C., "identifies" and attempts to defeat its opposition through such publications as the National Environmental Scorecard and by giving congressional candidates who agree to their big government environmental agenda thousands of dollars in campaign money.

While the LCV considers itself to be non-partisan, according to FEC records they provided 95% of their $777,717 in PAC money to Democratic candidates in the 1994 election cycle. The League of Conservation Voters' top PAC award went to Democratic Congressman Sam Farr for $13,500, while the top Republican taker, Congressman Vernon Ehlers, walked away with only $6,000. Overall, 155 Democratic candidates received funds compared to only nine Republicans.

The League of Conservation Voters' current President, Debra Callahan, says the LCV is "gratified that President Clinton and environmental champions in both parties found their voice as the year went on.... Particularly hopeful is the emergence of a small but growing band of Republican supporters led by Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) [a recipient of $5,354]."

Significant Findings

• Members of the House of Representatives receiving contributions from the League of Conservation Voters' PAC, on average, voted with the LCV's agenda 89% of the time, in contrast to 44% of all voting House members.
• 81% of members receiving contributions voted against private property protection, in contrast to 35% of all voting House members.
• 86% of members receiving contributions voted in favor of taxpayer funded abortion in foreign countries, in contrast to 43% of all voting House members.
• Twenty-seven House members receiving contributions, or 46.5%, voted for the LCV position 100% of the time.
• Fifty House members receiving contributions, or 86%, voted for the LCV position 75% of the time or greater.
• Fifty-five House members receiving contributions, or 95%, voted for the LCV position more than 60% of the time.
• Only two House members receiving donations, or 3%, voted against the LCV position more often than they were in favor of it.

The Targeted Green Votes

The vote rating is an average of twelve significant environmental and regulatory reform bills passed by the House of Representatives during the first session of the 104th Congress. The re-authorization of the Clean Water Act, H.R. 961, is scored twice because the League "considers this legislation so environmentally harmful." According to the LCV, a vote against these measures was a vote for the environmental agenda. Highlights of the twelve votes include:

• H.R. 1022 -- "The Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act" would require that true risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis be conducted before new regulations are imposed.
• H.R. 925 -- "The Private Property Protection Act of 1995" would protect the American quality of life by insuring that the federal government pays for what it "takes" when it excessively regulates or takes away the rights of an individual to use his own land. The measure was designed to force federal bureaucrats to establish sober regulatory priorities.
• H.R. 9 -- "The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act" was a package deal of regulatory relief that included a moratorium on new rules proposed by bureaucrats through the end of 1995, protection of private property rights, mandatory risk assessment and cost benefit analysis for rule makers, and a paperwork reduction law to simplify bureaucratic procedure for small businesses.
• H.R. 1158 -- "The Emergency Salvage Sales Amendment" included with H.R. 1158, a supplemental/recision appropriations bill, directed the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land management to begin emergency salvage timber sales. The measure was designed to reduce the risk of wildfire, promote forest health, reduce federal fire-fighting expenses and create jobs.
• H.R. 961 -- "The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995" would maintain the same water quality standards and protections of the original act, but give flexibility to states and localities on how to meet these standards. Among the bill's provisions: (a) requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to subject its rules to risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis; (b) when government wetland rules have the effect of confiscating private property the owner would be compensated; (c) encouraging the federal government to establish a reasonable definition of wetlands; (d) streamlined regulations, that provide state and local officials with a uniform set of guidelines to manage non-point source pollution; and (e) funding, in the sum of $15 billion to help communities finance their waste water infrastructure.
• H.R. 2099 -- "The EPA Riders," included with the appropriations bill funding the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed restrictions on the agency's use of fiscal year 1996 funds for regulatory action. Among the seventeen appropriations riders: property owners are protected from heavy fines and jail time by EPA enforcement of wetland provisions rules; the EPA is prevented from taking punitive action against companies that discover and amend environmental errors during voluntary self-audits; and, the EPA is prevented from implementing a new rule that would harm air quality by forcing cement kilns to use fossil fuels for 100% of their energy needs -- as opposed to the industry's preferred and cleaner source, energy created from recycling hazardous waste. The Riders were intended to encourage the Senate and the Clinton Administration to take action on regulatory reform measures already approved by the House of Representatives.
• H.R. 1868 -- The "Prohibition of Funding for Abortion" amendment, included with the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, rejected the use of funds to protect the environment through taxpayer subsidized international abortion. Many in the environmental lobby -- including the League of Conservation Voters -- consider overpopulation to be harmful to the earth's environment, and advocate so-called "family planning." The amendment also denied federal funds for lobbying foreign countries to liberalize abortion law, and refused to fund the United Nations Population Fund until President Clinton certifies that taxpayers will not subsidize coercive abortion in the People's Republic of China. The amendment defined "coercion" as "physician duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe psychological pressure."
  

Acknowledgments

Greenbacks for Green Votes 2 sources include Trashing the Economy by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb of The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise; Regulation Watch, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, January 6, 1995; The Scorecard, the League of Conservation Voters, February 1996; Federal Election Commission records; "Using the Appropriations Process to curb EPA's Regulatory Excesses," Heritage Foundation Issue Bulletin No. 213, September 13, 1995; the Congressional Record, June 28, 1995; and the Relief Report, The National Center for Public Policy Research.

The Environmental Policy Task Force is a project of The National Center for Public Policy Research. The task force was established to find and promote innovative, workable solutions to environmental problems -- solutions that minimize the suffering of working Americans while still protecting the environment.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit, Washington, D.C. public policy institute. Since it was founded in 1982, The National Center has conducted extensive domestic and public policy programs, including the publication of National Policy Analysis research and analysis papers, succinct and timely "Talking Points on the Economy" cards, and the regulatory reform fax newsletter "The Relief Report," among many other educational programs.

All correspondence relating to Greenbacks for Green Votes 2 should be directed to: The Environmental Policy Task Force, The National Center for Public Policy Research, E-mail eptf@nationalcenter.org. (C) Copyright 1996 The National Center for Public Policy Research. Excerpts may be reprinted provided original source is credited. ###