A Comparison of the 2006 Votes on Environmental Bills by
The Republican and Democratic Leadership
And Key Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members

November, 2006

Introduction and Overview

The takeover of control of Congress by the Democratic Party will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the federal management policies for public lands and natural resources. It is likely that in the coming Congress it will be much more difficult for county governments and natural resources companies to receive a fair and balanced hearing before congressional committees. Certainly, a number of environmental initiatives that had been blocked or opposed by the Republican majority during the past 12 years of GOP control may now begin to move through the legislative process.

As a result, rural public lands counties, natural resources based companies, and indeed, all segments of the public that support balanced multiple use management and sustained yield of the public lands and resources could face new, difficult and unprecedented challenges. In general, these new Democratic leaders and full committee and subcommittee chairmen are likely to be more responsive to the demands and policies of environmentalists. Consequently, they will likely also be less receptive to natural resources interests and multiple use policies. Many of them are personally committed to an environmental agenda.

In addition to the likelihood that there will be action on more environmental initiatives, it is also likely that there will be major efforts to undercut existing multiple use laws and regulations combined with much more intensive “oversight” investigations of Bush Administration natural resources policies, including subpoenaing administration officials. The cumulative effect may be an aggressive effort by the new majority in Congress to change or largely neutralize current natural resources policies that are essential to western natural resources–dependent counties.

A Comparison of Key Votes

One “shorthand” way to understand the potential impact on natural resources policy is to compare the 2006 League of Conservation Voters (LCV) ratings for the current Republican leadership and the chairmen of key full committees and subcommittees with those of the Democratic leadership and the Democratic “ranking members” (the term given to the ranking member of the minority party on the committee or subcommittee).

The LCV is an umbrella environmental organization that assigns numerical scores to congressmen and senators based on how they vote on bills that the environmental community considers important. The LCV uses these scores as part of a larger effort to raise money to support pro-environmental candidates and incumbents and to attempt to defeat the targeted incumbents they place on their “Dirty Dozen” list. Generally, they use between six and 10 votes in a congressional session to create their scores.

An LCV score of “100” means that a congressman has voted the environmentalists’ position on every bill they consider important. Conversely, a score of “0” means that the congressman or senator opposed every environmentalist-supported position. These scores are significant to public lands counties, natural resources companies and other public lands users because the balanced, responsible multiple use position on these same bills almost always is the opposite of the one advocated by the environmental extremists. Thus, the LCV score provides a convenient “mirror image” of a senator’s or congressman’s commitment to balanced and responsible multiple use. In other words, the lower their LCV score, the more supportive they are of balanced, responsible multiple use management.

It must be noted, however, that some of the votes the LCV selects for scoring senators and congressmen are not “pure” environmental issue votes. For example, one of the seven votes on which senators were scored in 2006 was restoring approximately $1 billion to a low- income energy assistance program that also had a low-income home weatherization provision. A number of senators who scored “14” in the 2006 LCV rating voted only for this one of the seven votes used.

While not all of those who are the current ranking Democrats on these committees and subcommittees will necessarily take over as chairmen, many of them certainly will, and the contrast in their scores with the current Republican chairmen is striking. The comparison rankings for the Senate and the House follow.

2006 League of Conservation Voters (LCV)
House of Representatives Voting Score Comparisons

Summary of Findings

In the second session of the 109th Congress, 10 of the 17 House Republican leaders and chairmen of these key committees and subcommittees listed below scored a perfect “0” on the LCV voting scorecard. This means that they did not vote the environmentalists’ position a single time in 2006. Of the remaining six chairmen, five scored 17, and only one scored higher, receiving a 67. (The Speaker does not usually vote.)

For the Democrats, a very different picture emerges. Of the 16 current Democratic House leaders and ranking minority members on these committees and subcommittees, nine have perfect LCV scores of 100 and two more scored 92. Only one of the remaining six scored below 50 and one, a nonvoting delegate from the Virgin Islands, was not scored.

2006 League of Conservation Votes (LCV)
Senate Voting Score Comparisons

Summary of Findings

In 2006, the second session of the 109th Congress, four of the current Republican leaders and chairmen of these key natural resources related committees and subcommittees listed below scored a perfect “0” on the LCV voting scorecard. This means that they did not vote the environmentalists’ position a single time in 2006. Seven of the remaining senators scored only a 14. Of the remaining two senators, one scored a 29, and one scored a 71.

For the Democrats, four scored 100 and seven scored above 50. Only one scored below 50. (This was Sen. Dorgon of North Dakota who held two of the 13 key positions.)