After years of mounting pollution across the American landscape, Congress enacted ambitious environmental legislation, particularly throughout the 1970s. Ensuing decades, however, brought torpid federal environmental policy. Conservationists became especially anxious as a duo of oil company executives became president and vice president in 2001. Their fears of an anti-environmental administration appeared warranted as energy industry executives and legislators with poor environmental voting records were nominated to key posts in the Department of Interior and Environmental Protection Agency. Soon, hundreds of environmental regulations and laws were relaxed or eliminated by the Bush administration. In some cases, Congress tried to restore environmental protection legislation.
This study attempts to gauge the ecological mood of the electorate as reflected by the success of green incumbent candidates in the Congressional elections of 2002. While a majority of Americans support the concept of environmental protection, results were mixed. A majority of Congressional incumbents considered advocates of environmental protection were re-elected, yet nearly all members with poor ecological records (extensively outnumbering the champions) were also returned to office, indicating that other factors (i.e., incumbency, party, region, endorsements, campaign resources) are more significant in explaining the outcome of the 2002 midterm election. One might imagine that with a Republican majority in Congress, powerful industry influence, and notable, albeit, tenuous presidential popularity, the early years of the new millennium will not witness robust environmental protection policy.
The Environmental Legacy
During the Nixon administration (1969-1974), Congress, backed by strong public support, recognized the need to protect an environment rapidly under assault by disasters such as the Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River fire. President Richard M. Nixon, generally not regarded as a champion of environmental protection, responded by establishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the steady bureaucratic stewardship of its first director, William Ruckelshaus. In fact, the 1970s would witness the enactment of some of the most protective legislation that established a legacy for environmental protection. In 1970, Congress, in response to the National Environmental Protection Act, created the Council on Environmental Quality. The council served as an advisory agency to analyze the impact of various projects affecting sensitive areas of the environment. That same year, the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to identify air pollutants that cause a health threat, and to establish auto and factory emission standards. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 stiffened anti-water pollution laws and, in 1975, included wetlands protection. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 authorized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate endangered species for federal protection and to regulate areas of "critical habitat." The Toxic Standards Control Act of 1976 directed the EPA to define hazardous wastes and toxic substances and to establish standards for their release into the atmosphere. Later, President Jimmy Carter, concerned over mounting toxic wastes in the environment, signed into law the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which authorized the EPA to oversee solid and industrial waste removal as well as recycling efforts. In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Act established the "Superfund" for cleaning up old toxic and hazardous waste sites. The EPA would oversee the cleanup of the sites, placing some 1,200 on its National Priority List. (1)
During the ensuing decades, there were many attempts in both the legislative and executive branch to roll back a variety of environmental protections. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan, recalcitrant against enacting rigorous environmental policy, ordered the removal of former President Carter's White House solar panels. Superfund site cleanup was given a low priority, and Reagan appointed James Watt as Secretary of the Interior. Watt, a staunch opponent of many epic environmental acts, was now in charge of managing public lands and enforcing legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Wilderness Act. Ironically, despite his controversial environmental edicts, it would take a racially insensitive remark and the disdain of Nancy Reagan to facilitate his removal. (2) By the mid-1990s, conservative Republicans had gained substantial numbers in both houses of Congress and questioned the need for many protective laws such as the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Endangered Species Act, which soon became vulnerable to major revisions or elimination. (3)
America's Resources: Executive Environmental Policy and Legislative Reaction
With a contentious U.S. Supreme Court decision that placed George W. Bush in the White House in 2001, environmentalists became alarmed as they tried to determine what the incoming president meant by "a centrist government and compassionate conservatism." (4) Certain members of Congress, often at odds with environmental protection bills, eyed a sympathetic pen when it came to legislation often favorable to the energy, mining, and timber industries. First, President Bush had to consider nominees for cabinet positions, and controversy soon followed. Gale Norton, former representative for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a legal group championing private property rights and unobstructed land usage, was nominated as Secretary of the Interior. Despite her confirmation, she received twenty-four opposing Senate votes. Bush then appointed Spencer Abraham as Secretary of Energy and John Ashcroft as Attorney General. As members of the Senate, Abraham and Ashcroft were often criticized by a variety of environmental groups. During their tenure in Congress, both received lifetime scores of five percent on the League of Conservation Voters' (LCV) National Environmental Scorecard. Steven Griles, a former coal company lobbyist, was then nominated to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and Donald Schregardus was selected as Deputy EPA Administrator for Operations and Enforcement. Schregardus, a former Ohio EPA official, withdrew from consideration when an agency report highly critical of his enforcement record surfaced. Additionally, despite opposition from thirty-four Senators, economist John Graham, a staunch supporter of deregulation, was confirmed as Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Bush also appointed several other former energy industry lobbyists and lawyers to key environmental protection positions, including Rebecca Watson as Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, and Mark Rey as Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Development in the Department of Agriculture. (5)
The president sought to leave a legacy of energy independence, national security, and "wise usage" of natural resources. With nominees in place, Bush attempted to block, weaken, or oppose environmental regulation issued late in the Clinton administration, policies Bush regarded as political and obstructionist against industry and economic development. Hoping for more drilling, mining, and logging in natural forests and on public lands and natural monuments, Bush directed Chief of Staff Andrew Card to delay enforcement of a number of rules that would substantially lower the amount of arsenic permitted in drinking water, the quantity of effluents emitted from hard-rock mines on public lands, and the amount of logging in roadless regions of national forests. The Senate, however, adopted an amendment that essentially forced EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to accept the new water standards. Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA, 98% LCV score) and Steven Horn (R-CA, 54% LCV score) then cosponsored an amendment to prevent a return to older, more permissive toxic mining emission standards. That mining provision was removed in Senate conference, however. Meanwhile, Bush supported increased fiscal development, eyeing certain wetlands for building, promoting a variety of industry-friendly trade agreements, and favoring the awarding of government contracts to certain companies despite previous environmental violations. (6)
Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and oil officials then met to craft an energy plan that emphasized fossil energy production and drilling on public lands with diminished focus on alternative resources and conservation. In hopes of stimulating the economy, the administration assisted energy industries with $2.4 billion worth of tax breaks and credits. The president did suffer setbacks, though. Congress passed amendments preventing an expansion of oil and gas drilling in national monument areas off the Florida Gulf Coast and in the Great Lakes. Additionally, in 2002, the Senate, by a fifty-four to forty-six vote, rejected Bush's proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. (7)
Undaunted by these setbacks, the Bush administration pushed for additional anti-environment measures regarding population growth and global warming. Despite protests from groups such as the Population Institute concerned about the depletion of natural resources caused by overpopulation, President Bush reinstated a Reagan-era policy restricting foreign aid for family planning. Opposing abortion, the president withheld funds from organizations that sponsored the procedure or provided related counseling. Representative Barbara Lee's (D-CA, 99% LCV score) efforts to reverse the policy proved unsuccessful. (8) The president also repudiated the Kyoto agreement regarding global warming, rejecting this international agreement as too harmful to U.S. business interests. The House responded by passing an amendment to an authorization bill offered by Representative Robert Menendez (D-NJ, 96% LCV score) urging the administration to resume negotiations on the Kyoto protocol. President Bush, however, remained steadfast in rejecting the protocol's limits on greenhouse emissions for industrialized countries. (9)
Bush's vision of a leaner and less intrusive federal bureaucracy led to the paring of EPA's enforcement budget in favor of grants to states. Critics claimed that the president's decentralized approach diminished efforts to protect the nation's lakes and rivers, thus prompting a top enforcement deputy to resign her post in protest. (10) The new budget passed in the House, but the Senate restored the agency's funding. The president's policy also called for reductions in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Soon thereafter, again with the hope of spurting economic activity, Bush cut budget allocations for Superfund while relaxing companies' liabilities for cleanup of Superfund sites. He also announced a lessening of Clean Air Act requirements for power plant emissions and snowmobiles in national parks. (11) Responding to summer forest fires in 2002, the president then lobbied for his Healthy Forest Initiative, a program that called for increased logging in national forests, which, advisors declared, would reduce density that may lead to fire threats. Seeking greater relief from the nation's dependency on foreign oil, in early 2003 Bush also announced plans to drill on federal lands, including New Mexico's Colorado Plateau and the Red Desert in Wyoming. (12)
2002 Senate Elections
Did the 2002 midterm elections indicate an anti-environmental voting trend in Congress? If so, was it reflective of the mood of the nation? With the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) from the Republican party, Democrats held a razor-thin majority in the Senate, while Republicans possessed a modest majority in the House entering the election. With the rejection that year of legislation to further protect drinking water, increase the legal liability of nuclear facilities, improve vehicle fuel economy, and limit federal support for factory farms, environmentalists underscored the need to retain and elect environmentally conscious Congressional members. On key votes dealing with drilling in sensitive areas and EPA funding, the Senate, on several occasions, reversed nature-threatening legislation passed in the House. Of the thirty-four Senate seats contested in 2002, the Sierra Club endorsed fourteen candidates (see Table 1), all Democrats (including ten incumbents). Among Senators seeking reelection, fifteen had a failing LCV score of forty percent or lower. Long serving members Phil Gramm (R-TX), Jesse Helms (R-NC), and Strom Thurmond (R-SC), all possessing LCV scores below thirteen percent, did not seek reelection. Two incumbent candidates had LCV scores between forty and seventy percent, while the remaining nine graded above seventy percent. The average LCV score for Democrats was seventy-two percent, thirteen percent for Republicans. The average LCV score for the entire Senate was forty-three percent. (13)
Senate Election Results
Twenty-four of twenty-eight incumbents (eighty-six percent) seeking reelection retained their seats. Nine (thirty-two percent) were Democrats (ten Democrats won overall), and eight of the nine incumbents in either party possessing LCV scores above seventy percent were reelected. Three (seventy-five percent) of the four candidates with LCV scores ranging between forty and seventy percent were victorious. Thirteen of the twenty-four triumphant incumbents (fifty-four percent) had LCV scores below forty percent. Thirteen of the fifteen candidates (eighty-seven percent) with LCV scores below forty percent were returned to the Senate. (14)
Three candidates who made the LCV's 2002 "Dirty Dozen" list were elected, including Wayne Allard (R-CO, 8% LCV score), an incumbent, and Representative Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, 10% LCV score), who defeated Democratic Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Representative John Sununu (R-NH, 28% LCV score) defeated incumbent Bob Smith (D-NH) in the primary and Governor Jeanne Shaheen in the general election. Sadly for environmental supporters, incumbent candidate Paul Wellstone (D-MN, 96% LCV score) was killed in a plane crash shortly before the election, while Robert Torricelli (D-NJ, 88% LCV score) dropped out of the race amid campaign finance malfeasance allegations. Former Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, a longtime supporter of the environment, replaced Toricelli and defeated Republican Doug Forrester. Also, Fred Thompson (R-TN, 12% LCV score) decided to forego the election and has since resumed his Hollywood career, while John Thune, Republican Representative from South Dakota (11% LCV score) lost to Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who received endorsements from the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. Six of fourteen candidates endorsed by the Sierra Club, and two of five League of Conservation Voters endorsees were victorious. Challengers Bill Bradbury (D-OR), Tom Strickland (D-CO), Gloria Tristani (D-NM), and Alex Sanders (D-SC), all endorsed by the Sierra Club, suffered defeat. (15)
House of Representatives Races
In the 435 House races, the Sierra Club endorsed 113 candidates (107 Democrats, five Republicans, one Independent), including 102 incumbents. The League of Conservation Voters backed fifty-eight candidates, including forty-nine Democrats and one Independent. House Democrats averaged seventy-nine percent LCV scores, while Republicans garnered seventeen percent LCV scores. The national average LCV score for the House was forty-seven percent. Almost half of all House members (218) averaged an LCV score below forty percent, 54 (twelve percent) averaged between forty and seventy percent, and 163 members (approximately thirty-eight percent) received scores above seventy percent. (16)
House Election Results
Ninety-seven percent, or 377 of 387 House incumbents, were returned to office in 2002. Ohio Democrat James Traficant (13% LCV score) was expelled. He then ran for election from prison, but lost. (17) Also, Tony Hall (D-OH, 75% LCV score) retired. Thirty-four members ran unopposed. One hundred seventy-nine Democrats (forty-seven percent) were reelected, along with one Independent. Overall, 206 Democrats were triumphant. (18)
One hundred thirty-nine (thirty-seven percent) of the 377 victorious incumbents had LCV scores above seventy percent; three were Republicans and one Independent. Only four of the 143 incumbents with LCV scores above seventy percent failed to win. Of the forty-five (twelve percent) incumbents reelected with LCV scores between forty and seventy percent, twenty-five were Democrats. All House incumbents scoring between forty and sixty percent were victorious. One hundred ninety-three (fifty-one percent) of the winning incumbents had LCV scores below forty percent. Only twenty-seven were Democrats. A mere six of the 199 candidates with LCV scores below forty percent were not reelected. Interestingly, all eleven incumbents with perfect scores were victorious. All were Democrats, including seven (sixty-four percent) from California. Conversely, of the twenty incumbents who received an LCV score of zero percent (all Republicans), nineteen (ninety-five percent) were reelected. (19)
Redistricting caused two Pennsylvania Representatives to square off in the general election. Republican George Gekas, with an LCV score of zero percent and a leader among the "Dirty Dozen" in the House, was defeated by Democrat Tim Holden (57% LCV score). (20) Redistricting also caused two powerful conservative Republican Representatives to compete in the primaries for Georgia's newly formed 7th District. John Linder (7% LCV score) defeated Bob Barr (14% LCV score) and later won reelection to the House. Environmentalists also lost some key supporters with the death of Patsy Mink (D-HI, 92% LCV score) and, in the primaries, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA, 97% LCV score) losing to Denise Majette, who later won in the general election. Of those candidates endorsed by the Sierra Club, 105 were winners, including ninety-seven incumbents. Among the forty-two incumbents supported by the League of Conservation Voters, forty-one were victorious. Four of sixteen challengers endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters also won. Overall, forty-five of fifty-eight candidates endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters were elected. (21)
Conclusion and Outlook
What do environmental scorecards and Congressional outcomes disclose about voters' wishes with regard to the environment? Literature on U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections indicates that the relationship between environmental issues and voter preferences is not easily understood, (22) and that some outcomes may be explained by the actions of a minority of the electorate, if vocal or zealous enough. (23) While most Americans state that they support a clean environment, do they identify with the philosophies of environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters and the American Wilderness Coalition? Studies by political scientists James A. Stimson, Michael B. MacKuen and others indicate a wave of popular support for the environment, or popular support for active government policies and interventions only in response to specific ecological crises such as the toxic contamination of Times Beach and Love Canal, or medical waste washing along various bathing beaches. (24)
There is scant evidence demonstrating that Congressional voting records on the environment, when isolated from other political factors, affect voting outcomes. Usually, incumbency is a factor that appears in at least ninety percent of candidates winning reelection, (25) and this election proved to be no exception. Most of the Senate winners in 2002 enjoyed long tenures while other important political variables, as always, came into play, including ideology, geography, economic conditions, partisanship, campaign resources, and demographics of the electorate. Victorious incumbents with LCV scores greater than seventy percent (eighty-nine percent) hailed from historically liberal or reform states, usually in the Northeast, upper Midwest, or the West Coast, with large and more politically active minority populations. All were progressive and, except for Jack Reed (R-RI, 94% LCV score), Democrats. At the same time, eighty-nine percent of the incumbents (a number almost identical to the successful environmentally-friendly Senators) won with LCV scores below forty percent. These Senators were all conservative Republicans from traditionalist Southern, Midwestern, and Mountain states. As in the case of most incumbents, all of the winners had healthy war chests. For instance, the agriculture lobby was particularly supportive of Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), James Inhofe (R-OK), and Mitch McConnel (R-KY). Labor was keenly behind John Kerry (D-MA) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), while the energy industry backed John Warner (R-VA), Pete Dominici (R-NM), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). (26)
One finds a similar situation in the House. Of the five states whose Congressional delegation averaged LCV scores above ninety-three percent, all were located in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, or Upper Midwest. New England states averaged seventy-eight percent for their Congressional members, Mid-Atlantic states seventy-three percent, and Upper Midwest states eighty-three percent. These areas had the highest LCV scores, well above other regions (Southeast-thirty percent; Lower Midwest-forty-six percent; Rocky Mountains/Southwest-twenty percent; West-fifty-four percent). Voters in Massachusetts and Maine, states possessing the highest average LCV scores (ninety-four and ninety-three percent, respectively), returned all of their incumbent candidates, each possessing LCV scores above eighty-five percent. Similarly, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, each averaging LCV scores below twelve percent, reelected all of their incumbent Representatives. (27)
From an environmental standpoint, the most one can discern about the Congressional elections of 2002 is speculation about upcoming environmental legislation and executive concern. In fact, some outcomes may have fashioned moderate optimism among environmentalists. Ten of twelve Democratic Senators, all with LCV scores above sixty percent, were reelected. Ninety-three percent of Sierra Club endorsees and seventy-eight percent of those approved by the League of Conservation Voters, generally incumbents, were elected to the House, while environmental scores for freshman members were, normally, no lower than that of veterans. Sara Zdeb, Legislative Representative for Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby group, notes that California ecologist Hilda Solis (100% LCV score) became Ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, and moderate New Jersey Republican Representative Rod Frelinghuysen (59% LCV score) became Chair of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee. Also, Lincoln Chafee (R-R1, 86% LCV score), a supporter of Superfund, became Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund. (28)
Usually, midterm elections are harsh on sitting presidents. In 1994, President Bill Clinton witnessed Republicans gain a majority in both Houses for the first time since the first two years of the Eisenhower administration (1953-55). However, the 2002 vote appeared to be a noticeable endorsement of President Bush's conservative agenda, as his party gained more seats to control both Houses of Congress. This does not bode well for environmentalists. In the last two sessions of Congress, Democrats have averaged an LCV score of eighty-two percent in the House and eighty-one percent in the Senate. During the same period, House and Senate Republicans have received an average LCV score of sixteen and nine percent, respectively. (29)
What should be worrisome for activists is that only one-third of Senate incumbents with LCV scores above seventy percent won reelection, while fifty-four percent of incumbents with LCV scores below forty percent retained their seats. Less than half of those candidates endorsed by the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters were reelected. For example, in reform-minded Minnesota, Republican Norm Coleman defeated former Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale, an ardent preservationist, while in Georgia, veteran Senator and decorated Vietnam War hero Max Cleland, another strong environmental supporter, lost to House "Dirty Dozen" member Saxby Chambliss (0% LCV score). Also in Georgia, a state typical of those that went solidly for Bush in 2000, Democratic Senator Zell Miller (69% LCV score), whose votes often reflect Republican policy, suffered a single session drop of sixty-three points on the LCV scale. In fact, eleven states had Congressional delegations with environmental averages of zero percent. Furthermore, some conservative lawmakers were elevated to key committee leadership positions. Senator James Inhofe (lifetime 6% LCV score), who once likened the EPA to the Gestapo, assumed the helm of the powerful Environment and Public Works Committee. In addition, Pete Dominici (lifetime 15% LCV score) took over the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (30)
In the House, over half of incumbents with LCV scores below forty percent won reelection, but only thirty-seven incumbents with LCV scores above seventy percent retained their seats. Most notably, perhaps, Richard Pombo (6% LCV score), a conservative California Republican, became Chair of the House Resources Committee. Pombo, a devotee of cowboy hats and "property rights," has generally been at odds with most environmental and species protection legislation throughout his legislative career. His selection continued to reflect the orientation of the committee, which dropped the word "natural" from its name when Alaska oil industry champion Don Young (R-AK, 8% LCV score) took over in 1995. Additionally, Tom DeLay (R-TX, 2% LCV score), a former pest exterminator, will continue to attack most environmental regulation with influential vigor as House Majority Leader. (31)
Amid a faltering economy and rising unemployment, the Bush administration received a healthy boost after the traumatic September 11, 2001 attacks, as Americans. observing subsequent attacks in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, sought to rally behind the president's war on terrorism. With a perceived mandate in mind, Bush touted a politically expedient platform that included national security, energy independence, and free enterprise to justify actions that were merely a series of political paybacks to industries that heavily bankrolled his campaign. The president's "clean skies strategy" allowed for virtual self-regulation by fossil fuel producers and heavy manufacturing, while his Healthy Forest Initiative has been a windfall for the timber lobby. Conservative think tank policy analyst Allan Fitzsimmons, who heads the Healthy Forest Initiative, plans key clear-cuts across national forests despite the fact that some of the largest fires have occurred in heavily logged areas. (32) Furthermore, he once argued that if all 1,200 species listed as endangered or threatened were to go extinct, "it would be disconcerting, but it would not constitute a crisis." (33)
Bush and Cheney's secretive energy plan, formulated with petroleum and mining officials without input from conservation groups, eschewed any serious efforts to increase vehicle efficiency or to develop alternative transportation systems. (34) Economist Thomas Power adds that the chief executive's ambitious plans to extract resources in picturesque national lands ignores the fact that tourism has kept these targeted areas economically and environmentally viable. (35) Ignoring protests from National Park Service officials, Deputy Interior Secretary Craig Manson has approved plans for a coal-fired power plant near Yellowstone National Park, even though National Research Council scientists indicate that the park's pristine air will be severely impacted should the facility go on-line. In catering to the wishes of cattle ranchers, the Bush administration is also carrying out a costly eradication program for buffalo that roam outside Yellowstone, even though there has never been a case of buffalo infecting livestock with any diseases. (36)
Public statements by top administration officals have only heightened concerns about President Bush's environmental policies. Despite a promise by Republican candidates to reach out to all sides associated with several political issues, critics point to a harsh comment made by the vice president immediately after the Senate's rejection of Bush's campaign to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Cheney compared Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD, 64% LCV score) to Saddam Hussein for his outspoken opposition to the Alaska extraction plan. (37) Furthermore, during the presidential campaign in 2000, Bush chided then Vice President Al Gore's policy on arsenic pollution as being insufficient. Yet, shortly after taking office, Bush pressed for lowering arsenic standards in drinking water. (38)
With moderate support in Congress and among the electorate, President Bush's "pollution, what pollution?" guiding principle will, indeed, characterize the federal government's environmental policy during the early years of the twenty-first century. However, amid controversy surrounding allied involvement in Iraq, a cautiously recovering economy, increasing federal budget deficits, and slipping approval ratings, conservationists may be heartened by memories of the presidential election of 1992. Despite a victory in the first Gulf War and a record ninety-one percent approval rating, a sluggish economy and a huge federal budget deficit denied George H.W. Bush (who did not live up to his self-proclaimed moniker as the "environmental president") a second term.
Table 1. INCUMBENTS IN THE 2002 SENATE RACES: AN ENVIRONMENTAL BATTLEGROUND? Senator LCV AWC W/L John Kerry (D-MA) * 97% A+ W Jack Reed (R-RI) * 96% A W Joe Biden (D-DE) 84% A W J. Rockefeller (D-WV) * 83% A W Tom Harkin (D-IA) * 82% B W Rich Durbin (D-IL) * 80% A+ W Carl Levin (D-MI) 78% B W Max Cleland (D-GA) * 74% B L Tim Johnson (D-SD) * 73% C W Max Baucus (D-MT) 68% C W J. Carnahan (D-MO) * 63% C L Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 61% D W Susan Collins (R-ME) 58% C W Robert Smith (R-NH) 33% D L John Warner (R-VA) 23% D W Gordon Smith (R-OR) 16% F W Pete Dominici (R-NM) 15% F W Ted Stevens (R-AK) 12% F W Pat Roberts (R-KS) 12% F W Thad Cochron (R-MS) 10% F W T. Hutchinson (R-AR) 10% F L M. McConnell (R-KY) 10% F W Larry Craig (R-ID) 7% F W Wayne Allard (R-CO) 7% F W James Inhofe (R-OK) 6% F W Chuck Hagel (R-NE) 3% F W Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 1% F W Mike Enzi (R-WY) 0% F W Notes: * Endorsed by the Sierra Club. Columns: LCV Score; American Wilderness Coalition Grade; Won/Lost Election. Source: American Wilderness Coalition, Wildcard (Washington, D.C.: American Wilderness Coalition, 2002), 1-5.
(1) Thomas Dye, Understanding Public Policy (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 222-24.
(2) On solar panel removal and relaxation of Superfund cleanup, see Lester Lave, "A New Wave of Environmental Laws Looms," Wall Street Journal, December 17, 1986, Pl; Brian Faler, "White House Turns Up the Heat with Solar Energy at Spa," Washington Post, February 3, 2003, A21. Watt stated that his environmental task force was well represented with "Jews, Indians and Blacks." As Secretary of the Interior, Watt was in charge of the annual Independence Day entertainment on the Capitol Mall. On one occasion, he cancelled an appearance by the First Lady's favorite group, the Beach Boys, claiming they were a "bad element." The replacement was Wayne Newton.
(3) B.J. Bergman, "Leader of the Pack," Sierra (November/December 1995):51-54.
(4) League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Scorecard Overview, 2001 (Washington, D.C.: League of Conservation Voters, 2001), 3.
(5) League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Scorecard Overview, 2002 (Washington, D.C.: League of Conservation Voters, 2002), 1.
(6) Ibid., 2.
(7) Ibid., 4.
(8) Ibid., 2.
(10) National Resources Defense Council, "The Bush Record 2002," Nature's Voice 4 (January/February 2003): 1.
(11) League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Scorecard Overview, 2002, 5.
(12) Defenders of Wildlife, "Another Fox in the Henhouse: Official With Bizarre Views To Run Forest Fire Plan," Denlines (September 2002): 1-2.
(13) Indicated LCV scores from Deb Callahan, "What's At Stake This November," The Insider (Fall 2002): 1-11; Endorsements from Sierra Club, Election 2002: A Chosen Few (Washington, D.C.: Sierra Club, 2002), 1-2. In 2000, the League of Conservation Voters was proud that they helped defeat #1 "Dirty Dozen" candidate Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), owner of Gorton fish products. Despite Gorton's support from software entrepreneur Bill Gates, Democrat Maria Cantwell won by .09% of the vote.
(14) For election results, see CNN, "Election Results, 2002," http://www.cnn.com/Election/2002/pages/senate/index.html, 1-6. For LCV endorsements, see Callahan, "What's At Stake This November," 11. For Sierra Club endorsements, see Sierra Club, Election 2002, 1-2.
(16) League of Conservation Voters, "Perfect Casting for the Dirty Dozen," The Insider (Summer 2002): 1, 4-5.
(17) House leaders indicated that had Traficant won, he would have promptly faced another vote to expel him from Congress.
(18) CNN, "Election Results, 2002," http://www.cnn.com/Election/2002/pages/house/full.html, 1-2.
(20) Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, "Gekas-Holden Race Heats Up in PA," Fox News Channel, Politics, October 21, 2002, 1-2 (available at www.Foxnews.com).
(21) CNN, "Election Results, 2002," http://www.cnn.com/Election/2002/pages/house/full.html, 1-2. For LCV endorsements, see Callahan, "What's At Stake This November," 11. For Sierra Club endorsements, see Sierra Club, Election 2002, 1-2.
(22) Courtney Brown, "Politics and the Environment: Nonlinear Instabilities Dominate," American Political Science Review 88:2 (June 1994):292.
(23)Colin Campbell, "Large Electorates and Decisive Minorities," Journal of Political Economy 107:6 (December 1999):1199.
(24) Brown, "Politics and the Environment," 293.
(25) James Q. Wilson and James J. Dilulio, American Government (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003), 180.
(26) Janet Hook, "How to Keep Them Down on the Farm: Subsidies; Congress: In Tribute to Agriculture Lobby's Clout, Bill Bumps Funding 70%," Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2002, A2; "The Union Label," Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2003, A16; "Energy's Pals In High Places," Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2003, B 10.
(27) League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Scorecard Overview, 2002, 8-11.
(28) Sara Zdeb, "New Hill Leaders to Watch," Friends of the Earth 33:4 (Spring 2002):14.
(29) League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Scorecard, 2001, 16-21.
(30) Ibid., 8-9.
(31) Ibid., 9
(32) Bob Decker, "Fire or Fiction? The Politics and Facts of Fire," Wild Montana (Fall 2003): 1-5.
(33) Zdeb, "New Hill Leaders to Watch," 14.
(34) Defenders of Wildlife, "Another Fox in the Henhouse," 2. The word secretive is used to describe the Bush-Chaney energy plan because of the current controversy surrounding Chaney's refusal to release details of that report to the public despite an order from a U.S. District Court judge and calls for the release of such information by some members of Congress and environmental groups. See Mullins Brody, "Dingell, Waxman Seek Chaney Energy Task Force Probe," Congress Daily, April 20, 2001, 3; "Court to Rule on Chaney Energy Meetings, Mexican Trucks," Congress Daily, December 15, 2003, 5.
(35) Thomas M. Power, "The Local Impacts of Protected Wildlands: Enhanced Economic Vitality," Redrock Wilderness 18:4 (Winter 2002):9-12.
(36) Michael Scott, "Politics Trumps Science in Our National Parks," Greater Yellowstone Report (Winter 2003):4.
(37) League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Scorecard Overview, 2002,2.
(38) "Eco-Bush," Washington Post, April 7, 2001, A30.
ROBERT M. SANDERS is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the State University of West Georgia in Carrollton, Georgia.…