2018 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL Scorecard Our Earth Is Worth Fighting For

2018 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL scorecard Our Earth Is Worth Fighting For

SECOND SESSION OF THE 115TH CONGRESS

scorecard.lcv.org LCV BOARD OF DIRECTORS *

JOHN H. ADAMS RAMPA R. HORMEL, HONORARY BILL ROBERTS Natural Resources Defense Council Enlyst Fund Corridor Partners CRISTÓBAL ALEX JOHN HUNTING, HONORARY LARRY ROCKEFELLER Latino Victory Project John Hunting & Associates American Conservation Association BRENT BLACKWELDER, HONORARY MICHAEL KIESCHNICK THEODORE ROOSEVELT IV, HONORARY Friends of the Earth Green Advocacy Project CHAIR Barclays Capital THE HONORABLE SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, ROGER KIM VICE CHAIR Democracy Alliance KERRY SCHUMANN The Accord Group Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters MARK MAGAÑA THE HONORABLE CAROL BROWNER, CHAIR GreenLatinos LAURA TURNER SEYDEL Former EPA Administrator Turner Foundation WINSOME MCINTOSH, HONORARY BRENDON CECHOVIC The McIntosh Foundation TRIP VAN NOPPEN Western Conservation Foundation Earthjustice MOLLY MCUSIC CARRIE CLARK Wyss Foundation KATHLEEN WELCH North Carolina League of Conservation Corridor Partners WILLIAM H. MEADOWS III Voters The Wilderness Society ANTHA WILLIAMS ELAINE FRENCH Bloomberg Philanthropies REUBEN MUNGER John and Elaine French Family Foundation Vision Ridge Partners, LLC REVEREND LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR. WADE GREENE, HONORARY Hip Hop Caucus SCOTT NATHAN Rockefeller Family & Associates Center for American Progress STEVE HOLTZMAN Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

LCV ISSUES & ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE *

BRENT BLACKWELDER SUNITA LEEDS KERRY SCHUMANN Friends of the Earth Enfranchisement Foundation Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters THE HONORABLE CAROL BROWNER MARK MAGAÑA TRIP VAN NOPPEN Former EPA Administrator GreenLatinos Earthjustice RUTH HENNIG REUBEN MUNGER The John Merck Fund Vision Ridge Partners, LLC

LCV SCORECARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE *

CAROL ANDRESS ROBERT DEWEY KATIE MURTHA Environmental Defense Fund Defenders of Wildlife Environment America KRISTEN BRENGEL MARTY HAYDEN MELINDA PIERCE National Parks Conservation Association Earthjustice Sierra Club ANA UNRUH COHEN CRAIG LASHER LUKAS ROSS Natural Resources Defense Council Population Action International Friends of the Earth ALISON CASSADY JESSICA LOYA ERIK SCHNEIDER Center for American Progress GreenLatinos National Audubon Society ROBERT COWIN DREW MCCONVILLE Union of Concerned Scientists The Wilderness Society LAURA DANIEL DAVIS KRISTEN MILLER National Wildlife Federation Alaska Wilderness League

* Organizations are shown for identification purposes only he nonprofit League of Conservation Voters (LCV) CONTENTS has published a National Environmental Scorecard every Congress since 1970, the year it was founded 1. ANALYSIS T by leaders of the environmental movement following the first Earth Day. LCV believes our earth is worth fighting for because everyone has a right to clean air, water, lands and a Overview of the 2nd Session of the 115th safe, healthy community. Congress 2 This edition of the National Environmental Scorecard pro- vides objective, factual information about the most important Voting Summary 4 environmental legislation considered and the corresponding voting records of all members of the second session of the 2. SENATE SCORES 115th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from about 20 respected environmental and conser- Vote Descriptions 7 vation organizations who selected the key votes on which members of Congress should be scored. LCV scores votes on Senate Votes 12 the most important issues of the year, including energy, climate change, public health, public lands and wildlife conser- 3. HOUSE SCORES vation, and spending for environmental programs. The votes included in this Scorecard presented members of Congress Vote Descriptions 18 with a real choice and help distinguish which legislators are House Votes 30 working for environmental protection. Except in rare circum- stances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred. Dedicated environmentalists and national leaders volun- teered their time to identify and research crucial votes. We extend special thanks to our Board of Directors, Issues & Ac- countability Committee, and Scorecard Advisory Committee for their valuable input. 2018 OVERVIEW

We are thrilled that the 2018 National Environmental Scorecard is the last of an eight-year reign by the most anti-environmental U.S. House of Representatives in history. The tectonic shift to a pro-environment majority comes not a moment too soon, as the Trump administration has continued its unrelenting assault on our air, water, lands and wildlife—all to benefit its corporate polluter allies. The attacks on the environment and public health from the

Trump administration and the House of Representatives throughout 2018 were all the more egregious in light of the record-breaking climate-change-fueled extreme weather our nation experienced—from the deadliest wildfire in California’s history to more intense hurricanes along the east coast—in the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by 2015, 2016, and

2017. It’s clear that climate change is having devastating impacts on people across the country, particularly those from low-income and communities of color.

The 2018 National Environmental Scorecard details is clear that in the absence of meaningful legisla- how the extreme leadership in the House of Rep- tive action, one of the most damaging legacies of resentatives failed to protect our environment and Trump’s presidency will be reshaping the federal public health or combat the climate crisis. Instead, judiciary with his nomination of extreme and parti- as the votes show, they continued to serve as a san candidates for lifetime appointments. In par- rubber stamp on the Trump administration’s attacks ticular, the Supreme Court wields immense power and once again pushed their own breathtakingly over the interpretation of our bedrock environmen- anti-environmental agenda. The 35 scored votes tal protections. Brett Kavanaugh’s extensive anti- chronicle the breadth and depth of the chamber’s environmental record, coupled with the credible destructive efforts from allowing more toxic pollu- allegations of sexual assault against him, led us tion into our air to removing protections for endan- to take the rare step of scoring two separate floor gered species to slashing clean energy funding. votes on the same matter—Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. In positive news, two The good news is that, by and large, this legislation extreme judicial picks—Ryan Bounds and Thomas was dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. Thanks to Farr—failed to proceed after Senator Tim Scott Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and (R-SC) joined Democrats in opposing their nomina- the “Green Firewall” of defense, the overwhelming tions based on their troubling records. majority of the House’s harmful legislative proposals didn’t even come up for a vote. The Senate’s 14 The Scorecard also includes votes on several ex- scored votes were instead predominately efforts treme nominees to serve in the Trump administra- to confirm President Trump’s radical nominees to tion, a continuation of a trend from the 2017 Score- the federal judiciary and the executive branch. It card, which featured votes on a slew of nominees

2 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV who went on to do tremendous damage after tak- senators received a score of zero percent in 2018, ing up their posts. Fortunately, public pressure and meaning they voted against the environment and opposition to the horrendous policies and scandals public health at every opportunity. In sharp con- that engulfed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and trast, 35 Democratic senators and one independent Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke helped push them out senator earned a perfect score of 100 percent. of the Trump administration. In the Senate, Democrats, and the independents who caucus with them, averaged 95 percent, The year concluded with Trump’s zealous refusal to while Republicans averaged eight percent. On the sign a government funding bill that didn’t include House side, 77 Republicans earned a zero percent money to build his racist and anti-environmental and 29 Democrats earned a perfect score of 100 wall along our southern border. Across both cham- percent. The House Democratic caucus averaged bers, we scored several votes seeking to build the 90 percent, whereas the House Republican caucus wall and promote other harmful anti-immigrant averaged eight percent. policies. Trump’s obsession with this xenophobic border wall caused a 35-day government shut- As we begin 2019, we couldn’t be more excited to down—the longest in U.S. history—that shuttered or work with the new, pro-environment House major- exposed America’s majestic national parks to harm, ity to hold the Trump administration accountable furloughed EPA workers who protect our communi- and make real progress in the 116th Congress. ties from pollution, and forced hundreds of thou- Under the strong, proven leadership of Speaker sands of federal workers to go without pay. Pelosi, this exciting new majority looks more like the country as a whole, campaigned on a mes- Despite the many attacks on the environment sage of action on climate, healthy communities and and public health from the House and the Trump protection of public lands, and now clearly has a administration, there were a few instances of bi- mandate to stop the corporate polluters’ agenda in partisan cooperation, largely thanks to leadership its tracks. While we anticipate that the Trump ad- from the Senate. This included the passage into ministration and the Republican leadership in the law of a pro-conservation Farm Bill and a Water Senate will prevent major pro-environment legisla- Resources Development Act that takes important tion from becoming law, there are opportunities steps forward on water infrastructure as well as a to make significant progress in states across the bipartisan agreement in the Senate to avoid new country this year. LCV and our state LCV partners anti-environmental and other harmful policy riders are more determined than ever to maximize that in appropriations bills. progress in the months and years to come. This change is coming when we need it most—because Overall, the 2018 scores reveal fairly stark polar- the stakes have never been higher for our environ- ization between the parties. Seven Republican ment, our health, and especially our climate.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 3 VOTING SUMMARY

2018 STATE AVERAGES STATE SENATE HOUSE Alabama 43 14 Alaska 11 6 Arizona 4 42 Arkansas 4 4 SENATE California 96 68 Colorado 54 40 Connecticut 100 93 Delaware 100 94 Florida 36 48 Georgia 7 26 Hawaii 100 70 Idaho 7 10 Illinois 93 60 Indiana 39 23 Iowa 4 27 Kansas 11 2 Kentucky 11 19 Louisiana 7 9 Maine 57 54 Maryland 100 77 Massachusetts 100 90 Michigan 100 42 Minnesota 100 40 Mississippi 5 22 Missouri 43 24 house Montana 54 3 Nebraska 11 10 Nevada 54 74 New Hampshire 96 89 New Jersey 100 70 New Mexico 96 63 New York 100 72 North Carolina 11 24 North Dakota 29 3 Ohio 54 26 Oklahoma 11 4 Oregon 100 72 Pennsylvania 46 45 Rhode Island 100 97 South Carolina 7 20 South Dakota 11 3 Tennessee 7 23 Texas 11 28 Utah 7 6 Vermont 100 94 Virginia 100 36 Washington 100 61 West Virginia 25 7 Wisconsin 50 42 Wyoming 7 0

4 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 2018 HIGH AND LOW SCORES

SENATE SENATE SCORES house HOUSE SCORES OF 100 OF 100 ARIZONA Gallego

CALIFORNIA Harris CALIFORNIA Thompson · DeSaulnier · Pelosi · Lee, B. · HIGHEST HIGHEST COLORADO Bennet Khanna · Roybal-Allard DELEGATIONS DELEGATIONS CONNECTICUT Blumenthal · FLORIDA Soto · Frankel · Wasserman Schultz Murphy GEORGIA Johnson, H. Connecticut 100% Rhode Island 97% DELAWARE Carper · Coons ILLINOIS Schakowsky Delaware 100% Delaware 94% HAWAII Hirono · Schatz MASSACHUSETTS McGovern Hawaii 100% ILLINOIS Durbin Vermont 94% MICHIGAN Jones

Maryland 100% MARYLAND Cardin · Van Hollen Connecticut 93% NEW YORK Meeks · Meng · Velázquez · Clarke, Y. · Nadler Massachusetts 100% MASSACHUSETTS Markey · Massachusetts 90% · Espaillat · Serrano · Engel · Morelle Warren PENNSYLVANIA Scanlon · Wild Michigan 100% New Hampshire 89% MICHIGAN Peters · Stabenow RHODE ISLAND Cicilline Minnesota 100% MINNESOTA Klobuchar · Smith TEXAS Doggett New Jersey 100% NEVADA Cortez Masto LOWEST WASHINGTON Smith, Adam New York 100% NEW HAMPSHIRE Hassan DELEGATIONS WISCONSIN Pocan Oregon 100% NEW JERSEY Booker · Menendez Rhode Island 100% NEW MEXICO Udall Wyoming 0% HOUSE SCORES OF 0 Vermont 100% NEW YORK Gillibrand · Schumer Kansas 2% ALABAMA Byrne · Aderholt · Palmer Virginia 100% OHIO Brown Montana 3% ARIZONA Lesko Washington 100% OREGON Merkley · Wyden North Dakota 3% ARKANSAS Westerman RHODE ISLAND Reed · CALIFORNIA Cook · Walters · Hunter Whitehouse South Dakota 3% COLORADO Lamborn LOWEST VERMONT Leahy · Sanders Arkansas 4% FLORIDA Dunn · Yoho · DeSantis · Posey · Webster DELEGATIONS VIRGINIA Kaine · Warner Oklahoma 4% GEORGIA Carter, E.L. · Handel · Hice · Loudermilk · Allen · WASHINGTON Cantwell · Murray Alaska 6% Graves, T. Arizona 4% WISCONSIN Baldwin Utah 6% ILLINOIS LaHood Arkansas 4% West Virginia 7% INDIANA Banks · Rokita · Messer SENATE SCORES Iowa 4% Louisiana 9% OF 0 KANSAS Jenkins · Estes Mississippi 5% KENTUCKY Comer · Guthrie · Barr ARIZONA Kyl Georgia 7% LOUISIANA Scalise · Higgins, C. · Abraham · Graves, G. ARKANSAS Cotton Idaho 7% MICHIGAN Huizenga · Walberg FLORIDA Rubio Louisiana 7% MINNESOTA Lewis, Jason · Emmer IOWA Grassley South Carolina 7% MISSISSIPPI Kelly, T. · Palazzo MISSISSIPPI Cochran Tennessee 7% MISSOURI Wagner · Luetkemeyer · Hartzler · Graves, S. PENNSYLVANIA Toomey Utah 7% NEW MEXICO Pearce WISCONSIN Johnson NORTH CAROLINA Walker · Hudson · Pittenger · Meadows Wyoming 7% OHIO Wenstrup · Latta · Johnson, B. · Gibbs · Balderson

OKLAHOMA Hern

PENNSYLVANIA Meehan · Dent

SOUTH CAROLINA Duncan, Jeff · Norman · Rice, T.

TENNESSEE Kustoff

TEXAS Poe · Johnson, S. · Ratcliffe · Hensarling · Arrington · Olson · Williams · Burgess · Farenthold · Cloud

UTAH Curtis

VIRGINIA Goodlatte · Brat

WEST VIRGINIA Mooney

WISCONSIN Duffy · Gallagher

WYOMING Cheney

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 5 RATING THE LEADERSHIP OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEES SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIR SCORE RANKING MEMBER SCORE Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Roberts (KS) 7 Stabenow (MI) 100 Appropriations Shelby (AL) 7 Leahy (VT) 100 Commerce, Science and Transportation Thune (SD) 14 Nelson (FL) 71 Energy and Natural Resources Murkowski (AK) 14 Cantwell (WA) 100 Environment and Public Works Barrasso (WY) 7 Carper (DE) 100 SENATE COMMITTEE LEADER AVERAGE CHAIRS 10 RANKING MEMBERS 94

HOUSE

COMMITTEE CHAIR SCORE RANKING MEMBER SCORE Agriculture Conaway (TX-11) 3 Peterson (MN-07) 20 Appropriations Frelinghuysen (NJ-11) 17 Lowey (NY-17) 91 Energy and Commerce Walden (OR-02) 6 Pallone (NJ-06) 91 Natural Resources Bishop, Rob (UT-01) 3 Grijalva (AZ-03) 94 Science, Space, and Technology Smith, Lamar (TX-21) 3 Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX-30) 94 Transportation and Infrastructure Shuster (PA-09) 3 DeFazio (OR-04) 97 HOUSE COMMITTEE LEADER AVERAGE CHAIRS 6 RANKING MEMBERS 81 party leaders' scores SENATE DEMOCRATS SCORE REPUBLICANS SCORE Schumer (NY), Minority Leader 100 McConnell (KY), Majority Leader 14 Durbin (IL), Minority Whip 100 Cornyn (TX), Assistant Republican Leader 7 Murray (WA), Assistant Democratic Leader 100 Thune (SD), Conference Chair 14 Stabenow (MI), Chairwoman of Policy and Communications Committee 100 Blunt (MO), Conference Vice Chair 7 LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 100 LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 11 HOUSE

DEMOCRATS SCORE REPUBLICANS SCORE Ryan (WI-01), Speaker of the House* N/A Pelosi (CA-12), Minority Leader 100 McCarthy, Kevin (CA-23), Majority Leader 3 Hoyer (MD-05), Minority Whip 63 Scalise, Steve (LA-01), Majority Whip 0 McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Clyburn (SC-06), Assistant Minority Leader 94 Conference Chairman 6 Crowley (NY-14), Caucus Chairman 86 Messer (IN-06), Policy Committee Chairman 0 LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 86 LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 2

*The Speaker of the House votes at his discretion.

6 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 2018 SENATE VOTE DESCRIPTIONS

1. BORDER WALL FUNDING & ANTI-IMMIGRANT POLICY Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) offered an amendment to H.R. 2579, which would have funded the environmentally destructive and xenophobic border wall and advanced anti-immigrant policies. The border wall threatens communities living along our southern border, has far ranging negative impacts on our lands, wildlife and waterways, and circumvents bedrock environmental laws. This amendment would spend nearly $25 billion on an ineffective and damaging border wall and military technology, and would waive 36 environmental and cultural laws for construction of the wall and other border enforcement activities on federal lands within 100 miles of both the northern and southern borders. The Grassley amendment also includes policies that would cause significant harm to immigrant families, including gutting family immigration and eliminating the diversity visa lottery program. On February 15, the Senate rejected the Grassley amendment by a vote of 39-60 (Senate roll call vote 36). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

2. WHEELER CONFIRMATION (EPA DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Andrew Wheeler for deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment, but Wheeler has dedicated his career to weakening environmental protections—he served as a lobbyist for numerous fossil fuel clients, including one of our country’s biggest polluters, Murray Energy. Wheeler’s inherent conflicts of interest, which stem from his long history of ties to the fossil fuel industry, make him an entirely inappropriate choice for the second highest leadership role at the agency. On April 12, the Senate confirmed Wheeler to be deputy administrator of the EPA by a vote of 53-45 (Senate roll call vote 71). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

3. EXPOSING WATERWAYS TO INVASIVE SPECIES Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered S. 1129, the Coast Guard Reauthoriza- tion Act, as an amendment to S. 140, the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. This amendment included the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA), which would leave our waters more vulnerable to aquatic invasive species by exempting the shipping industry from requirements under the Clean Water Act in favor of a new, weaker regulatory scheme. By shifting the EPA’s authority to regulate ballast water to the Coast Guard, VIDA would set a dangerous precedent for transferring authority to agencies that are ill-equipped to handle the responsibility. In addition, VIDA would pre-empt the states’ capacity to enact and enforce their own ballast water rules, undermining their ability to protect their waterways from pollution and invasive species. Lastly, VIDA would exempt ships in geographically restricted areas--such as the Great Lakes-- from any regulation, further jeopardizing some of our most iconic water bodies. On April 18, the Senate rejected the McConnell amendment by a vote of 56-42 (60 votes were needed for passage; Senate roll call vote 77). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 7 4. BRIDENSTINE CONFIRMATION (NASA ADMINISTRATOR) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Representative Jim Bridenstine for administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Bridenstine’s extreme views of NASA’s mission, his voting record, his many scientifically inaccurate statements, and his lack of qualifications make him an unacceptable choice for NASA administrator. His voting record is at odds with NASA’s mission and shows a history of opposition to science-based environmental standards and support for weakening agencies’ use of science in decision-making. As recently as 2016, Bridenstine sought to change the mission of NASA by authoring legislation that essentially stripped out Earth Science and Earth Observing Missions. Scientists, researchers, and individuals across the country rely on this data and the continuity of its collection to understand, forecast, and respond to changes in land use, pollutant emissions, atmospheric chemistry, weather and climate, and other phenomena. On April 19, the Senate confirmed Bridenstine to be administrator of NASA by a vote of 50-49 (Senate roll call vote 80). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

5. POMPEO CONFIRMATION (SECRETARY OF STATE) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Representative Mike Pompeo to serve as secretary of state. The secretary of state is tasked with carrying out the president’s foreign policy agenda and plays a key role in shaping international climate policy. Pompeo has deep ties to the Koch Brothers and has consistently favored polluting fossil fuel interests. During his time in Congress, Pompeo voted against protecting public health, conserving imperiled species, and advancing renewable energy, earning an abysmal 4 percent lifetime score on LCV’s National En- vironmental Scorecard. Pompeo’s anti-environmental record, climate science denial, preference for war over diplomacy, and hostility to human rights should be disqualifying. On April 26, the Senate confirmed Pompeo to be secretary of state by a vote of 57-42 (Senate roll call vote 84). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

6. ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL RESCISSION PACKAGE House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) sponsored H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act, also known as the rescission package, which would have cut funding for several programs that protect our environment and public health. H.R. 3 would slash programs that promote needed investments in clean energy and conservation, as well as $16 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Additionally, this package, which the Trump administration proposed, irresponsibly rescinds funding levels agreed upon by Congress, and much of the funding that H.R. 3 would cut has been identified for future use and could continue to support projects and communities across the country. On June 20, the Senate rejected a motion to discharge H.R. 3 by a vote of 48-50 (Senate roll call vote 134). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

8 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 7. OLDHAM CONFIRMATION (FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Andrew Oldham to be U.S. circuit court judge for the Fifth Circuit. Circuit courts are often the ultimate arbiters of highly significant cases, including those involving environmental protections, and it is critical that the judges confirmed to serve lifetime appointments on these courts are qualified, non-partisan, and committed to treating parties fairly. As deputy solicitor general for the State of Texas and general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Oldham frequently challenged federal environmental protections and efforts to address climate change. In his personal capacity, Oldham has questioned the consti- tutionality of the EPA, calling it “illegitimate.” He has also taken strong stances against immigrant rights and voting rights, supporting challenges to the Voting Rights Act and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Oldham’s partisan and anti-environment record are disqualifying for a judicial nominee. On July 18, the Senate confirmed Oldham to the Fifth Circuit by a vote of 50-49 (Senate roll call vote 160). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

8. GRANT CONFIRMATION (ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Britt Grant to be U.S. circuit court judge for the Eleventh Circuit. Circuit courts are often the ultimate arbiters of highly significant cases, including those involving environmental protections, and it is critical that the judges confirmed to serve lifetime appointments on these courts are qualified, non-partisan, and committed to treating parties fairly. As solicitor general for the state of Georgia, Grant repeatedly fought to weaken the Endangered Species Act, one of our nation’s most successful conservation programs. She has also sought to weaken the Voting Rights Act, and opposed LGBTQ equality and immigrant rights. Grant’s partisan and anti-environment record are disqualifying for a judicial nominee. On July 31, the Senate confirmed Grant to the Eleventh Circuit by a vote of 52-46 (Senate roll call vote 174). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

9. KAVANAUGH CLOTURE VOTE (SUPREME COURT) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds immense power to protect our right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and participate equitably in our democracy. Justices on the court have an impact last- ing generations, and it is essential that they respect precedent, interpret the law in a fair and well- reasoned manner, and act as an independent check on the president. Kavanaugh’s record reflects a concerning preference for corporations and polluters over public health and the environment. In repeated rulings he has shown hostility towards the Environmental Protection Agency, seeking to strike down fundamental protections of our air and water. In addition to his environmental record, the credible sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are disqualifying for a nominee to the Supreme Court. On October 5, the Senate invoked cloture on Kavanaugh’s nomination by a vote of 51-49 (Senate roll call vote 222). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 9 10. KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION (SUPREME COURT) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds immense power to protect our right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and participate equitably in our democracy. Justices on the court have an impact last- ing generations, and it is essential that they respect precedent, interpret the law in a fair and well- reasoned manner, and act as an independent check on the president. Kavanaugh’s record reflects a concerning preference for corporations and polluters over public health and the environment. In repeated rulings he has shown hostility towards the Environmental Protection Agency, seeking to strike down fundamental protections of our air and water. In addition to his environmental record, the credible sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are disqualifying for a nominee to the Supreme Court. On October 6, the Senate approved Kavanaugh’s nomination by a vote of 50-48 (Senate roll call vote 223). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

11. CLARK CONFIRMATION (ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DOJ ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Jeffrey Bossert Clark to be assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) of the Department of Justice. The mission of the ENRD is to enforce the nation’s environmental laws to ensure clean air, water and land for all people in this country. Clark is an outspoken opponent of environmental and public health protections, and a well-known climate change denier. He has spent his career undermining the protections ENRD is tasked with enforcing, making him unfit to lead the division. On October 10, the Senate confirmed Clark to be assistant attorney general by a vote of 52-45 (Senate roll call vote 228). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

12. NELSON CONFIRMATION (NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Ryan Nelson to be U.S. circuit court judge for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit courts are often the ultimate arbiters of highly significant cases and it is critical that the judges confirmed to serve lifetime appointments on these courts are qualified, non-partisan, and committed to treating parties fairly. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit, the largest circuit court covering nearly three-quarters of the United States’ public lands, serves a crucial role in deciding some of our nation’s most important environmental cases. During his time in the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Nel- son oversaw the legal defense of the President George W. Bush administration’s efforts to benefit polluters and roll back critical environmental protections. This included helping the government argue against regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Massachusetts v. EPA. On July 31, the Senate confirmed Nelson to the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 51-44 (Senate roll call vote 232). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

10 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 13. MCNAMEE CONFIRMATION (FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION) The Senate considered President Trump’s nomination of Bernard McNamee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). An independent agency that oversees transactions in the U.S. wholesale power market, FERC has historically been a non-partisan entity that is committed to ensuring just and reasonable energy rates. However, in McNamee’s previous role at the Depart- ment of Energy, he took steps to bailout the coal industry and weaken renewable energy’s growing foothold in the U.S. power sector. As an outspoken climate doubter and renewable energy critic, it is clear McNamee is unable to be a non-partisan, unbiased FERC commissioner. On December 6, the Senate confirmed McNamee to FERC by a vote of 50-49 (Senate roll call vote 254).NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

14. FARM BILL CONFERENCE REPORT Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and led negotiations on the 2018 Farm Bill, officially titled H.R. 2, the Agri- culture Improvement Act of 2018. These negotiations resulted in a bipartisan conference report, which was essentially free of environmentally harmful provisions. The conference committee re- moved a number of anti-environmental attacks that were in the House-passed Farm Bill, including language that would have jeopardized our clean water, cut money from critical conservation programs, eviscerated protections for endangered species, and undercut our bedrock environmental laws. Instead, the final Farm Bill conference report provided new tools to conserve and re- store our land, water, and forests, including maintaining funding for conservation programs, new incentives to help farmers improve water quality and soil health, support for clean energy and energy efficiency for small businesses and farmers, expanded opportunities for outdoor recreation, and new funding to encourage growth of the organic sector. On December 11, the Senate passed the Farm Bill conference report 87-13 (Senate roll call vote 259). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed the conference report on December 12 and the president signed the legislation into law on December 20.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 11 SENATE VOTES KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment action i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Wheeler Confirmation (EPA Deputy Exposing Waterways to Invasive SpeciesBridenstine Confirmation (NASA Pompeo Confirmation (Secretary of State) Anti-Environmental Rescission Package Kavanaugh Cloture Vote (Supreme Court) Kavanaugh Confirmation (Supreme Court) Nelson Confirmation (Ninth Circuit Court McNamee Confirmation (Federal Energy 2018 BorderWall Funding &Anti-Immigrant Policy Oldham Confirmation (Fifth Circuit CourtGrant Confirmation (Eleventh Circuit Court Clark Confirmation (Asst. Att. General, DOJ Farm Bill Conference Report Administrator) Administrator) of Appeals) Regulatory Commission) 115th Congress Lifetime of Appeals) of Appeals) Environment and Natural Resources Division) % % % ALABAMA

Jones D 79 N/A 79 % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % % ✖ % % Shelby R 7 3 13 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ALASKA

Murkowski R 14 6 17 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ Sullivan R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ARIZONA

Flake R 7 3 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Kyl* R 0 N/A 8 i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

McCain* R 0 N/A 19 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? i i i i i i ARKANSAS

Boozman R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Cotton R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ CALIFORNIA

Feinstein D 93 97 90 % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % Harris, K. D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % COLORADO

Bennet D 100 91 90 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Gardner R 7 3 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % CONNECTICUT

Blumenthal D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Murphy, C. D 100 97 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % DELAWARE

Carper D 100 97 83 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Coons D 100 94 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

* Senator Kyl was sworn in on September 5, 2018 following the death of Senator McCain on August 25, 2018.

12 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV SENATE VOTES KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment action i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Nelson* D 71 85 71 % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ? ? % %

Rubio R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ GEORGIA

Isakson R 7 3 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Perdue R 7 3 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % HAWAII

Hirono D 100 100 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Schatz D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % IDAHO

Crapo R 7 3 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Risch R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ILLINOIS

Duckworth** D 86 94 89 % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % Durbin D 100 100 88 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % INDIANA

Donnelly D 71 67 60 ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % % % % % Young, T. R 7 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % IOWA

Ernst R 7 3 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Grassley R 0 0 18 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ KANSAS

Moran R 14 6 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Roberts R 7 3 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

* Senator Nelson entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 228 and 232, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ** Senator Duckworth entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 71, which would have been scored as pro-environment. She missed two votes due to the birth of her daughter.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 13 SENATE VOTES KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment action i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

McConnell R 14 6 7 ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Paul R 7 6 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ LOUISIANA

Cassidy R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Kennedy, John R 7 3 3 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ MAINE

Collins R 21 27 61 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % King, A. I 93 82 90 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % MARYLAND

Cardin D 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Van Hollen D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % MASSACHUSETTS

Markey D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Warren D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % MICHIGAN

Peters, G. D 100 100 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Stabenow D 100 97 89 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % MINNESOTA

Klobuchar D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Smith D 100 N/A 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % MISSISSIPPI

Cochran* R 0 N/A 9 ✖ i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Hyde-Smith** R 8 N/A 8 i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Wicker R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

* Senator Cochran resigned on April 1, 2018. ** Senator Hyde-Smith was sworn in on April 9, 2018.

14 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV SENATE VOTES KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment action i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Blunt R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % McCaskill D 79 79 75 % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ % % % MONTANA

Daines R 14 6 4 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % Tester D 93 88 86 % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % NEBRASKA

Fischer R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Sasse R 14 6 3 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % NEVADA

Cortez Masto D 100 94 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Heller R 7 3 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hassan D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Shaheen D 93 97 96 % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % NEW JERSEY

Booker D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Menendez D 100 94 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % NEW MEXICO

Heinrich D 93 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % Udall D 100 94 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % NEW YORK

Gillibrand D 100 100 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Schumer D 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % NORTH CAROLINA

Burr R 14 6 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Tillis R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? %

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 15 SENATE VOTES KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment action i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Heitkamp D 50 55 52 ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ % % ? ? % % Hoeven R 7 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % OHIO

Brown, S. D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Portman R 7 3 19 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % OKLAHOMA

Inhofe R 14 6 5 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Lankford R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % OREGON

Merkley D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Wyden D 100 97 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % PENNSYLVANIA

Casey D 93 97 92 % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % %

Toomey R 0 0 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ RHODE ISLAND

Reed, J. D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Whitehouse D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % SOUTH CAROLINA

Graham, L. R 7 6 12 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Scott, T. R 7 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % SOUTH DAKOTA

Rounds R 7 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Thune R 14 6 10 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % TENNESSEE

Alexander R 7 6 20 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Corker R 7 6 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

16 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV SENATE VOTES KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment action i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Cornyn R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Cruz R 14 6 4 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % UTAH

Hatch R 7 3 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Lee, M. R 7 3 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ VERMONT

Leahy D 100 100 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Sanders I 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % VIRGINIA

Kaine D 100 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Warner D 100 88 87 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % WASHINGTON

Cantwell D 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Murray D 100 100 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % WEST VIRGINIA

Capito R 7 3 17 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % Manchin D 43 45 45 ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % WISCONSIN

Baldwin D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Johnson, R. R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ WYOMING

Barrasso R 7 3 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ Enzi R 7 3 5 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 17 2018 HOUSE VOTE DESCRIPTIONS

1. DELAYING PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS Representative Bill Johnson (R-OH) sponsored H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of 2017, which would delay public health protections, in this case limits on deadly toxic pollution—including mercury, arsenic, and chromium—from brick manufacturing facilities. The BRICK Act was modified in the Rules Committee to incorporate H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act of 2017. This addition to the underlying bill would delay stronger emissions limits for new wood stoves and boilers, which reduce hazardous and toxic air pollutants—including particulate matter (soot), nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde. On March 7, the House approved H.R. 1917 by a vote of 234-180 (House roll call vote 99). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

2. UNDERMINING CLEAN AIR STANDARDS Representative Keith Rothfus (R-PA) sponsored H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Sav- ing the Environment (SENSE) Act, which would permanently exempt power plants that burn coal waste from meeting certain clean air standards, including limits on hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, both of which can cause significant respiratory problems. The courts have already ruled on this matter and found that waste coal-burning power plants are already meeting these air quality standards, and there is no evidence that allowing higher levels of pollutants, which expose our communities to dirtier air, would have any positive impacts. On March 8, the House approved H.R. 1119 by a vote of 215-189 (House roll call vote 101). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

3. ASSAULT ON ENDANGERED SALMON AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) sponsored H.R. 3144, a bill to deal with the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) also known as the “Salmon Extinction Act,” which would undermine the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). H.R. 3144 would mandate the use of FCRPS dams that two U.S. District Court decisions found harmful to endangered salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. H.R. 3144 would also derail an ongoing environmental review that could help recover the region’s salmon and steelhead. On April 25, the House approved H.R. 3144 by a vote of 225-189 (House roll call vote 153). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

4. LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT CONSENT ON NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORTATION Representative Dina Titus (D-NV) offered an amendment to H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. This amendment would establish a consent-based siting process for determining a permanent nuclear waste repository. The current process does not provide the affected state or community an opportunity for consent. On May 10, the House rejected the Titus amendment by a vote of 80-332 (House roll call vote 178). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

18 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 5. NUCLEAR STORAGE Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) sponsored H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amend- ments Act of 2017, which would put our nation’s nuclear waste storage policy on the wrong track, yet again. It contains rollbacks of public health and environmental laws, along with provisions that continue to pre-empt state, local, and tribal objections and supplant scientific and techni- cal decisions. H.R. 3053 attempts to truncate public review in order to force “solutions” to the myriad of problems associated with Yucca Mountain. Rather than charge forward at the cost of public safety and public resources, Congress should instead start an important and necessary consent-based approach to siting for a permanent solution for high-level nuclear waste. On May 10, the House approved H.R. 3053 by a vote of 340-72 (House roll call vote 179). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

6. UNDERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR FORESTRY PROJECTS Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) offered an amendment to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, which would mandate a “take it or leave it” approach to forest management projects. This approach would preclude agencies from considering reasonable alternatives to logging proposals, and would thus force projects to be approved without any evaluation of less environmentally harmful options. It would also severely limit the ability of federal courts to review agency actions, issue preliminary injunctions, and limit the time injunctions are valid. On May 17, the House approved the Westerman amendment by a vote of 224-191 (House roll call vote 198). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 2, including the Westerman amendment, on June 21. The H.R. 2 conference report did not include this harmful language. The president signed the H.R. 2 conference report into law on December 20.

7. ATTACK ON ALASKA’S NATIONAL FORESTS Representative Don Young (R-AK) offered an amendment to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutri- tion Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, which would exempt federal forests in Alaska—including the Tongass National Forest, the largest remaining temperate rainforest in the world— from one of the country’s most important land, wildlife, and water conservation safeguards, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule protects habitat for wildlife, safeguards clean water for communities, and prevents harmful development in designated areas of our national forests. Eliminating this protection would open up nearly 10 million acres of the Tongass’ wild temperate rainforest to destructive logging and road building activities. On May 17, the House approved the Young amendment by a vote of 208-207 (House roll call vote 199). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 2, including the Young amendment, on June 21. The H.R. 2 conference report did not include this harmful language. The president signed the H.R. 2 conference report into law on December 20.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 19 8. ELIMINATING CLEAN WATER SAFEGUARDS Representative Jim Banks (R-IN) offered an amendment to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, which would repeal the clean water safeguards estab- lished by the 2015 Clean Water Rule. This rule protects the waterways that feed into the drinking water of over 117 million people as well as the streams, headwaters, wetlands and other water bodies that serve as habitat for wildlife, reduce flooding risk, and naturally filter pollution. The Banks amendment would subvert the rulemaking process by disregarding public input, ignore the rule’s strong scientific foundation, and return Clean Water Act jurisdiction to an inconsistent and uncertain regulatory scheme. Eliminating the Clean Water Rule would disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color and would jeopardize the clean water families, communities, and economies depend on. On May 18, the House approved the Banks amendment by a vote of 238-173 (House roll call vote 203). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 2, including the Banks amendment, on June 21. The H.R. 2 conference report did not include this harmful language. The president signed the H.R. 2 conference report into law on December 20.

9. GUTTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR MINING PROJECTS Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV) offered an amendment to H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which would weaken standards for mine permitting on public lands and undermine public input and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. This amendment would eliminate the opportunity for communities to review, comment and raise concerns about potential mines during the permitting process. The amendment would also broadly define what minerals qualify as critical to our national security. On May 23, the House approved the Amodei amendment by a vote of 229-183 (House roll call vote 223). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 5515, including the Amodei amendment, on May 24. The H.R. 5515 conference report did not include this harmful language. The president signed the H.R. 5515 conference report into law on August 13.

10. ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL RESCISSION PACKAGE House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) sponsored H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act, also known as the rescission package, which would cut funding for several programs that protect our environment and public health. H.R. 3 would slash programs that promote needed investments in clean energy and conservation, as well as $16 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Additionally, this package, which the Trump administration proposed, irresponsibly rescinds funding levels agreed upon by Congress, and much of the funding that H.R. 3 would cut has been identified for future use and could continue to support projects and communities across the country. On June 7, the House passed H.R. 3 by a vote of 210-206 (House roll call vote 243). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate rejected a motion to discharge H.R. 3 on June 20.

20 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 11. GUTTING CLEAN ENERGY FUNDING Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered an amendment to H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019. This amendment would eliminate funding for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Re- search Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which would undermine clean energy innovations that lower costs, create jobs, and reduce pollution. The government is the largest source of energy research funding, and DOE research and development investments have led to breakthroughs in technology on a range of clean energy issues. On June 7, the House rejected the Gosar amendment by a vote of 123-295 (House roll call vote 246). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

12. NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY Representative Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) offered an amendment to H.R. 5895, the Energy and Wa- ter, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019. This amendment would have struck a harmful policy rider prohibiting funds from being used to implement the marine planning efforts and other ecosystem-based management components of the National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy directs government agencies with differing mandates to work collaboratively to improve ocean health and also ensures that all competing interests—including conservationists, fishermen, scientists, shipping companies, port managers, energy developers, and those who live and work in ocean communities—have a voice in ocean management. On June 7, the House rejected the Lowenthal amendment by a vote of 195-223 (House roll call vote 250). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

13. ASSAULT ON CLEAN ENERGY & CLEAN WATER Representative Michael Simpson (R-ID) sponsored H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019. This legislation would slash funding for clean energy programs such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. It also contains a number of anti-environmental policy riders that simply have no place in a spending bill, including a provision repealing the Clean Water Rule, a commonsense safeguard that protects the drinking water sources of one in three people in the U.S., and a “Salmon Extinction Rider” that would jeopardize the continued existence of thirteen imperiled wild salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia River Basin. On June 8, the House approved H.R. 5895 by a vote of 235-179 (House roll call vote 257). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The H.R. 5895 conference report rejected the cuts to clean energy and new, anti-environmental policy riders contained in the House bill. The president signed the H.R. 5895 conference report into law on September 21.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 21 14. BORDER WALL FUNDING & ANTI-IMMIGRANT POLICY House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) sponsored H.R. 4760, the Securing America’s Future Act, which would have funded the environmentally destructive and xenophobic border wall, failed to offer a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, and advanced anti-immigrant policies. This bill would spend nearly $25 billion on an ineffective and damaging border wall and military technology and would waive 36 environmental and cultural laws for construction of the wall and other border enforcement activities on federal lands within 100 miles of both the northern and southern borders. H.R. 4760 also includes policies that would cause significant harm to immigrant families, including eliminating opportunities for family reunification and the diversity visa program and criminalizing millions of undocumented immigrants. On June 21, the House rejected H.R. 4760 by a vote of 193-231 (House roll call vote 282). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

15. ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL FARM BILL House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway (R-TX) sponsored H.R. 2, the Agri- culture and Nutrition Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, which included harmful riders and attacks on conservation that would undermine safeguards for our health and the environment. H.R. 2 would have jeopardized clean water by eliminating the oversight of pesticides that are ap- plied directly to our waterways, cut around $800 million from critical conservation programs, eviscerated protections for endangered species, undercut our bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, and more. With the addition of dangerous riders attack- ing the Tongass National Forest and the Clean Water Rule, H.R. 2 clearly placed the interests of polluting industries above those of our families and communities. On May 18, the House rejected H.R. 2, but passed the legislation on June 21 by a vote of 213-211 (House roll call vote 284). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The H.R. 2 conference report rejected the anti-environmental provisions contained in the House bill. The president signed the H.R. 2 conference report into law on December 20.

16.ATTACK ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Representative Don Young (R-AK) sponsored H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which would reauthorize and amend the law governing U.S. fisheries—known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act. H.R. 200 would undermine decades of successful fisheries management and the science-based conservation tools that are essential in preventing overfishing, restoring depleted fish populations, and aiding coastal communities that have suffered the negative consequences of years of overfishing. This bill would weaken rebuilding requirements, establish broad loopholes in conservation efforts, decrease accountability for overfishing, and establish weaker standards for some sectors of the fishing economy, among other negative consequences for our nation’s oceans and fisheries. On July 11, the House approved H.R. 200 by a vote of 222-193 (House roll call vote 321). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

22 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 17. PRIVATIZING FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) sponsored H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act, which would fast-track privatization of federal infrastructure projects, jeopardizing critical environmental protections and harming communities, Native American tribes, fishing industries, and wildlife interests. H.R. 3281 would remove federal protections from many federal assets, limit Congress’s oversight capacity on the transfer of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation facilities, eliminate opportunities for public participation under the NEPA process, undermine wildlife protections, and harm taxpayers. On July 12, the House passed H.R. 3281 by a vote of 233-184 (House roll call vote 325). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

18. ATTACK ON PUBLIC PROTECTIONS Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sponsored H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017, which would make it more difficult for agencies to implement laws that are designed to protect our air and water and ensure safe food, products, and workplaces. H.R. 50 would also undermine the autonomy of independent regulatory agencies by making them subject to regulatory review by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. H.R. 50 would decrease transparency in the rulemaking process and give industry a clear advantage over public health and safety. On July 13, the House approved H.R. 50 by a vote of 230-168 (House roll call vote 328). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

19. UNDERMINING THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would undermine the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), America’s premier conservation program. This amendment would divert LWCF funding to the national parks maintenance backlog, and thus manufactures a false choice between addressing LWCF and addressing parks maintenance, even though the two can work together to benefit our public lands. On July 18, the House rejected the Biggs amendment by a vote of 172-237 (House roll call vote 341). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 23 20. METHANE POLLUTION SAFEGUARDS Representative Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing its standards to reduce methane pollution from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry. The EPA’s methane standard requires compliance with low-cost, proven safeguards that are critical to reducing methane’s contributions to climate change. The climate benefits are estimated to reach $170 million by 2025 while also curbing toxic air pollutants that contribute to smog and jeopardize the health of nearby communities. On July 18, the House approved the Mullin amendment by a vote of 215-194 (House roll call vote 346). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its own version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

21. IGNORING THE COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE Representative Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would prevent the federal government from considering the economic costs of climate change. This amendment is harmful for families, businesses, and the economy because it ignores the public health risks and economic costs of climate change. These burdensome costs could come in the form of rising healthcare costs, destruction of property, or increased food prices. This amendment prioritizes the interests of carbon polluters over people. On July 18, the House approved the Mullin amendment by a vote of 215-199 (House roll call vote 347). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

22. UNDERMINING SAFEGUARDS FOR SAFE SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the De- partment of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would prevent the implementation of vital safeguards that protect communities from exposure to toxic contaminants—such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury—in the fish they eat. This action would ignore court decisions, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the voices of Native American tribes, Asian Pacific-Islander communities, and fishing interests, all of whom agree that strong standards for seafood consumption are necessary to protect public health and water quality. On July 18, the House approved the McMorris Rodgers amendment by a vote of 227-185 (House roll call vote 348). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

24 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 23. BLOCKING PROTECTIONS FOR PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would block federal funding for the threatened Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse under the Endangered Spe- cies Act (ESA). By blocking funding, this amendment attacks recovery efforts for this western species, which has suffered habitat loss and fragmentation throughout its range. Funded recovery programs require a Habitat Conservation Plan, which is a crucial aspect of species recovery under the ESA. Overall, this amendment is an attack on the ESA that sets a dangerous precedent of inserting political considerations in what should be a science-based process. On July 18, the House approved the Lamborn amendment by a vote of 213-201 (House roll call vote 350). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

24. UNDERMINING PROTECTIONS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to protect and improve the health of the 64,000-square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed, which covers six states and the District of Columbia. The EPA’s authority to penalize states that fail to uphold their pollution reduction commitments is critical to ensuring the success of this historic federal-state partnership that is restoring the Chesapeake Bay and protecting the treasured estuary that over 18 million residents rely on. On July 18, the House approved the Goodlatte amendment by a vote of 213-202 (House roll call vote 351). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

25. BLOCKING PROTECTIONS FOR THE NEW MEXICO MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would block federal funding for the endangered New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). By blocking funding, this amendment attacks recovery efforts for this rare southwestern subspecies, which has suffered a significant disappearance due to habitat loss and fragmentation throughout its range. Funded recovery programs require a Habitat Conservation Plans, a crucial aspect of the species recovery under the ESA. Overall, this amendment is an attack on the ESA that sets a dangerous precedent of inserting political considerations in what should be a science-based process. On July 18, the House rejected the Pearce amendment by a vote of 206- 209 (House roll call vote 353). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 25 26. BLOCKING PROTECTIONS FOR THE LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the lesser prairie chicken for protections under the Endan- gered Species Act (ESA). Blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the lesser prairie chicken would interfere with the science-based process used to determine the need of a species’ protection. Overall, this amendment is an attack on the ESA that sets a dangerous precedent of blocking the potential listing of a species that wildlife experts may deem necessary. On July 18, the House approved the Pearce amendment by a vote of 216-199 (House roll call vote 354). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

27. ATTACK ON IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would open the Ironwood Forest National Monument to mining and drilling and prevent the Interior Depart- ment from properly protecting the land. This amendment threatens the forests, rare wildlife, ar- cheological sites, and other aspects of the monument, despite the wishes of local stakeholders. On July 18, the House rejected the Gosar amendment by a vote of 193-220 (House roll call vote 355). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

28. ELIMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GRANTS Representative Jody Hice (R-GA) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would prohibit the Office of Environmental Justice at the EPA from using funds for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program. The Office of Environmental Justice informs agency actions and its impact on or benefit toward communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. The Office of Environmental Justice and the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program help to ensure that agency carries out its mission of equitably protecting public health and the environment. On July 18, the House rejected the Hice amendment by a vote of 174-240 (House roll call vote 356). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

26 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 29. UNDERMINING ACCESS TO THE COURTS Representative Jason Smith (R-MO) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which limits the recovery of attorneys’ fees in citizen suits under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, the amendment prohibits the recovery of legal fees for settlements in cases against the federal government. This change would remove critical incentives for citizen suit provisions and especially harm low-income communities that seek legal representation to enforce these environmental laws. The proposed changes also disincentivize the quick resolution of citizen suits, increasing litigation costs for both plaintiffs and the government. On July 18, the House approved the Smith amendment by a vote of 215-199 (House roll call vote 357). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

30. ANTI-CLIMATE SOLUTIONS RESOLUTION Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) sponsored H.Con.Res. 119, which expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the U.S. economy. This resolution ignores the huge costs that unchecked climate change is already having on our families, our communities and our economy, costs that fall disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color. This resolution seeks to stifle exploration of potential climate solutions and to further the interests of polluting fossil fuel companies. On July 19, the House passed H.Con.Res. 119 by a vote of 229-180 (House roll call vote 363). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

31. ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL SPENDING BILL Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) sponsored H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, En- vironment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which deeply cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and includes numerous anti-environmental policy riders. This bill also contains cuts to essential conservation efforts carried out by the Department of the Inte- rior, including a $65 million cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), our nation’s best parks program. The poison pill riders include provisions repealing the Clean Water Rule, which protects the drinking water of one in three people in this country, as well as direct attacks on protections for wildlife such as the greater sage-grouse. On July 19, the House approved H.R. 6147 by a vote of 217-199 (House roll call vote 365). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6147 on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 27 32. MINIMIZING METHANE POLLUTION Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) offered an amendment to H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, which would require liquefied natural gas export applica- tions to demonstrate that the natural gas was produced in a manner that minimized dangerous methane emissions. These emissions threaten public health and the environment, and low-cost technologies to reduce methane pollution are readily available and would save taxpayer resources. On September 6, the House rejected the DeGette amendment by a vote of 195-210 (House roll call vote 390). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

33. UNDERMINING NEPA REVIEW IN LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECTS Representative Bill Johnson (R-OH) sponsored H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Cer- tainty and Access Act, which would jeopardize the health of our air, water, climate, and communities by incentivizing more oil and natural gas drilling. This bill would declare that all low-volume natural gas exports or imports are in the public interest and would undermine the National En- vironmental Policy Act process, reducing the ability of communities directly impacted by these liquified natural gas projects to have a meaningful voice in the review process. On September 6, the House approved H.R. 4606 by a vote of 260-146 (House roll call vote 392). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

34. BLOCKING PROTECTIONS FOR GRAY WOLVES Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) sponsored H.R. 6784, the Manage Our Wolves Act, which would undermine both the scientific and legal framework of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by legislatively removing ESA protections for nearly all gray wolves across the continental United States and preventing judicial review of these delisting actions. Additionally, H.R. 6784 would codify a 2017 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to delist gray wolves in Wyoming, while at the same time overturning a unanimous decision by the same court, which upheld protections for gray wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. On November 16, the House approved H.R. 6784 by a vote of 196-180 (House roll call vote 420). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

35. BORDER WALL FUNDING House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) sponsored an amendment to H.R. 695, which would have provided $5.7 billion to construct the environmentally damaging and xenophobic border wall. The border wall threatens communities living along our southern border, has far ranging negative impacts on our lands, wildlife and waterways, and circumvents bedrock environmental laws. This amendment also included a short-term continu- ing resolution to fund the government through February 8 and emergency disaster relief funding. On December 20, the House approved the Frelinghuysen amendment by a vote of 217-185 (House roll call vote 472). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

28 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV

HOUSE VOTES

KEY LCV SCORES % = Pro-environment action

✖ = Anti-environment action or f i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

Assault on Endangered Salmon and Local and Tribal Government Consent Undermining Environmental Review for Gutting Environmental Review 2018 115th Congress Lifetime Delaying Public Health Protections Nuclear Storage Attack on Alaska’s National Forests Eliminating CleanWater Safeguards Anti-Environmental Rescission Package Gutting Clean Energy Funding National Ocean Policy Assault on Clean Energy & CleanWater Undermining Clean Air Standards Environmental Review on Forestry Projects Mining Projects

ALABAMA

1 Byrne R 0 0 0 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖

2 Roby R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ 3 Rogers, M. R 3 1 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖

4 Aderholt R 0 0 3 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ ✖ ? ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖

5 Brooks, M. R 20 13 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %%%% ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Palmer R 0 0 1 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖

7 Sewell* D 71 81 79 ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ %%%% ???? %%%% ? %%%%%%%%%%%%%% ✖ %% ALASKA

AL Young, Don R 6 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ ARIZONA

1 O’Halleran D 83 87 87 %%%% ✖ %% ✖ %%%% ✖ %%%% ✖ %%%%%%%%%%% ✖ %% ✖ %% 2 McSally R 9 10 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ %% ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 3 Grijalva D 94 97 96 %%%% ? %%%%%%%% %%%%%%%% ? %%%%%%%%%%%%% 4 Gosar R 6 3 5 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ % % ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ 5 Biggs R 11 9 9 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ % %% ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 6 Schweikert R 3 1 4 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ % ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ 7 Gallego D 100 96 97 %%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8 Lesko** R 0 N/A 0 i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖

9 Sinema† D 74 77 77 ✖ %% ✖ ✖ %%%%%%% ✖ %%%% ✖ % ? %%%%%%%%% ✖ %% ✖ % ? ARKANSAS

1 Crawford R 6 3 5 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 2 Hill R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ 3 Womack R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Westerman R 0 0 1 ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖ ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖

* Representative Sewell entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 153, 243, 246, 250, 257 and 328, which all would have been scored as pro-environment. ** Representative Lesko was sworn in on May 7, 2018. † Representative Sinema entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 346, which would have been scored as pro-environment.

30 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV HOUSE VOTES

Natural Gas Projects

Monument

ALABAMA

1 Byrne R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Roby R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ 3 Rogers, M. R 3 1 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Aderholt R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Brooks, M. R 20 13 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Palmer R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Sewell* D 71 81 79 ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ % % % % ? ? ? ? % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ALASKA

AL Young Don R 6 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ARIZONA

1 O’Halleran D 83 87 87 % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % 2 McSally R 9 10 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 3 Grijalva D 94 97 96 % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % 4 Gosar R 6 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 5 Biggs R 11 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 6 Schweikert R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 7 Gallego D 100 96 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Lesko** R 0 N/A 0 i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Sinema† D 74 77 77 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % ? % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ? ARKANSAS

1 Crawford R 6 3 5 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 2 Hill R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 3 Womack R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Westerman R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 31 HOUSE VOTES

KEY LCV SCORES % = Pro-environment action

✖ = Anti-environment action or f i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

CALIFORNIA

1 LaMalfa R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 2 Huffman* D 91 96 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % 3 Garamendi D 91 93 90 % ? % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 4 McClintock R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 5 Thompson, M. D 100 97 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 6 Matsui D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 7 Bera D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Cook R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 McNerney D 91 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % 10 Denham R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ 11 DeSaulnier D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 12 Pelosi D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 13 Lee, B. D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 14 Speier** D N/A N/A 91 % % % ? ? % % ? % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % 15 Swalwell† D 89 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? 16 Costa D 69 50 49 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ % 17 Khanna D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 18 Eshoo‡ D 94 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % 19 Lofgren D 97 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 20 Panetta D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 21 Valadao R 11 9 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % 22 Nunes R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ 23 McCarthy R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Huffman entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 257, which would have been scored as pro-environment, and missed roll call votes 390 and 392 due to a family matter. ** Representative Speier entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 203, which would have been scored as pro-environment. She missed a number of votes due to recovery from a medical procedure. † Representative Swalwell entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 420, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ‡ Representative Eshoo entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 390 and 392, which would have been scored as pro-environment.

32 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV HOUSE VOTES

Natural Gas Projects

Monument

CALIFORNIA

8 Cook R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 33 HOUSE VOTES

KEY LCV SCORES % = Pro-environment action

✖ = Anti-environment action or f i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

24 Carbajal* D 83 91 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ? ? ? ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 25 Knight R 11 10 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 26 Brownley** D 89 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % 27 Chu D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 28 Schiff D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 29 Cárdenas D 49 73 84 ? ? ? ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % % 30 Sherman D 97 99 97 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 31 Aguilar† D 91 96 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 32 Napolitano‡ D 94 86 90 % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 33 Lieu D 89 90 90 ? ? % % ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 34 Gomez D 97 96 96 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 35 Torres D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 36 Ruiz D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 37 Bass D 66 81 87 % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % % % % 38 Sánchez D 97 99 93 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 39 Royce R 9 9 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ 40 Roybal-Allard D 100 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 41 Takano D 97 99 99 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 42 Calvert R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 43 Waters, Maxine D 94 94 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % 44 Barragán D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

45 Walters, Mimi R 0 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

46 Correa D 91 91 91 % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

* Representative Carbajal entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 243, 246, and 250, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ** Representative Brownley missed roll call vote 420 dealing with the devastating impacts of wildfires in California. † Representative Aguilar entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 346, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ‡ Representative Napolitano entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 321, which would have been scored as pro-environment.

34 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV HOUSE VOTES

Natural Gas Projects

Monument

45 Walters, Mimi R 0 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

46 Correa D 91 91 91 % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 35 HOUSE VOTES

KEY LCV SCORES % = Pro-environment action

✖ = Anti-environment action or f i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

47 Lowenthal* D 94 96 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? 48 Rohrabacher R 11 10 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 49 Issa R 3 6 4 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ?

50 Hunter R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

51 Vargas D 91 96 96 % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 52 Peters, S.** D 86 91 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % 53 Davis, S. D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % COLORADO

1 DeGette D 91 90 96 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 2 Polis† D 66 83 89 ? ? % % % ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ? ? 3 Tipton R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 4 Buck R 6 6 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ %

5 Lamborn R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Coffman R 20 13 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ 7 Perlmutter‡ D 89 94 86 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % CONNECTICUT

1 Larson, J. D 94 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 2 Courtney D 91 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 3 DeLauro§ D 91 84 94 % ? % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 4 Himes D 91 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % 5 Esty D 94 97 98 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % DELAWARE

AL Blunt Rochester D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

* Representative Lowenthal entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 472, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ** Representative Peters entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 346, which would have been scored as pro-environment. † Representative Polis entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 99, 101, 243 and 257, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ‡ Representative Perlmutter entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 321, 325 and 328, which would have been scored as pro-environment. § Representative DeLauro entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 101, 178 and 179, which would have been scored as pro-environment.

36 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV HOUSE VOTES

Natural Gas Projects

Monument

50 Hunter R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

5 Lamborn R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

AL Blunt Rochester D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | scorecard.lcv.org 37 HOUSE VOTES

KEY LCV SCORES % = Pro-environment action

✖ = Anti-environment action or f i = Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

FLORIDA

1 Gaetz R 9 7 7 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Dunn R 0 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Yoho R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

4 Rutherford R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ 5 Lawson* D 89 79 79 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % %

6 DeSantis** R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ? ? i i

7 Murphy D 83 87 87 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % %

8 Posey R 0 0 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Soto D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 10 Demings D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

11 Webster R 0 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Bilirakis R 6 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 13 Crist D 94 89 89 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 14 Castor D 91 89 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 15 Ross R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ 16 Buchanan R 40 24 22 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ 17 Rooney, T. R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ 18 Mast R 29 26 26 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ 19 Rooney, F. R 20 10 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ 20 Hastings D 94 94 84 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? 21 Frankel D 100 97 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 22 Deutch D 94 91 91 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 23 Wasserman Schultz D 100 93 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 24 Wilson, F. D 97 91 91 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 25 Diaz-Balart R 17 11 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ 26 Curbelo R 57 40 39 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % ✖ % %

* Representative Lawson entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 363, which would have been scored as pro-environment. ** Representative DeSantis resigned on September 10, 2018. 38 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV HOUSE VOTES