Martha McSally (Arizona)

McSally Voted Five Times To Protect Big Oil Subsidies Over Arizona’s Clean Energy Economy And Voted Repeatedly To Block Clean Air Standards.

McSally Voted Five Times To Protect Big Oil Subsidies Over Arizona’s Clean Energy Economy.

2018: McSally Voted Against Decreasing Fossil Energy Research Funding And Increase Funding For Advanced Research, Each By $28.3 Million.In June 2018, McSally voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “decrease[d] funding for fossil energy research and development at the Energy Department by $28.3 million, and would [have] increase[d] funding for advanced research projects at the department by the same amount.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2019 minibus of Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 204 to 214. [House Vote 245, 6/7/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 730; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5895]

2017: McSally Voted Against Reducing Funding For Fossil Fuel Research And Development By $355 Million And Against Increasing Funding For Energy Efficiently And Renewable Energy By $177 Million.In July 2017, McSally voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “increase[d] by $177 million funding to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account and would [have] reduce[d] by $355 million funding to the Fossil Fuel Research and Development account.” The underlying legislation was an FY 18 ‘minibus’ appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 181 to 246. [House Vote 420, 7/26/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/26/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 234; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3219]

2016: McSally Voted Against Increasing Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy And Reducing Funding For Fossil Energy Research.In May 2016, McSally voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “reduce[d] funding for Energy Department fossil energy research and development by $13 million and increase[d] funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities by roughly $10 million.” The underlying bill was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 167 to 251. [House Vote 245, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1096; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]

2016: McSally Voted Against Reducing Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy And Increasing Funding For Fossil Energy Research.In May 2016, McSally voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “reduce[d] funding for Energy Department energy efficiency and renewable energy activities by $50 million and increase funding for fossil energy research and development by $45 million.” The underlying bill was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 182 to 236. [House Vote 243, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1090; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]

2015: McSally Voted Against An Amendment That Would Increase Funding For Renewable And Efficient Energy By $26 Million And Cut Funding For Fossil Fuels By $34 Million.In April 2015, McSally voted against an amendment that would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $26 million and cut funding for fossil fuels by $34 million. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would, “increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $26 million and reduce funding for fossil energy by $34 million.” The underlying bill would have made, according to Congressional Quarterly, “appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.” The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 173 to 248. [House Vote 198, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/02/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 167; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]

Martha McSally Repeatedly Voted To Gut Clean Air Protections That Protect Us From Harmful Pollutions That Cause Cancer And Asthma Attacks.

Martha McSally Voted To Undermine Clean Air Act Protections To Reduce Smog.In 2016, McSally voted for “H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016, which would jeopardize the health of people in the United States by undermining the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)’s recently-updated standards for ozone pollution, also known as smog. This legislation would delay the implementation of these vital health protections by at least ten years and double the Clean Air Act’s current five-year review periods for updating all national air quality standards, thereby allowing unhealthy air to persist even longer. H.R. 4775 would also eviscerate a central pillar of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to rely solely on the best-available health science when setting air quality standards, forcing the agency to consider factors unrelated to health, like technical feasibility, in the initial standard setting process.” [House Vote 282, 6/08/16; LCV, 2016 Scorecard]

Martha McSally Voted To Delay Implementation Of Ozone Standards.In 2017, McSally voted against “an amendment to H.R. 3354, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, that would strike language in the bill that would needlessly delay until 2025 implementation of the stronger ozone – or smog – standard, which was finalized in October of 2015 and would help clean up the air for millions of Americans currently living in areas with unsafe air quality.” [House Vote 476, 9/07/17; LCV, 2017 Scorecard]

Martha McSally Voted To Block The Clean Power Plan. In 2015, McSally voted for “S.J. Res. 24, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would permanently block theEnvironmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan established the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants our nation’s single largest source of the pollution fueling climate change. S.J. Res. 24 is an extreme measure that would block the biggest step our country has ever taken to address climate change, threatening our health and our future. S.J. Res. 24 would also prohibit the EPA from ever developing ‘substantially similar’ standards in the future.” [House Vote 650, 12/01/15, LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

Martha McSallyVoted To Replace The Clean Power Plan With Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule. In October 2019, McSally voted against S.J. Res. 53, a resolution to “block the implementation of a Trump administration environmental rule that aims to weaken regulations on power plant emissions. The vote, which failed 41 to 53, was largely seen as a protest of the Trump administration’s rollbacks on several environmental protections and climate change mitigation efforts, and offers a roadmap of actions Democrats might take if they win back the Senate in 2020.” [Senate Vote 324, 10/17/19; The Hill, 10/17/19]

• Trump’s Emissions Rollbacks Will Cause More Air Pollution, Resulting In “High Levels Of Smog, More Coughing, Wheezing, Shortness Of Breath, Asthma Attacks, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) Exacerbations And Also More Particulate Pollution.” “The rule change comes as many communities around the US are seeing a decline in air quality, a result of climate change, wildfires, higher temperatures, regulatory rollbacks and poor enforcement of regulations, said Paul Billings, senior vice-president of advocacy for the American Lung Association. ‘This will mean there will be more pollution associated with oil extraction, transport, refining – sort of all the way from the well to the pump,’ Billings said. ‘This will mean high levels of smog, more coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, asthma attacks, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) exacerbations and also more particulate pollution.’ The effects will be worse on communities near oil processing facilities and highways, often people of color and poorer Americans.” [Guardian, 3/31/20]

American Lung Association: Particle Pollution From Vehicle Exhaust And Power Plants Can Cause Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, And Asthma Attacks. “Lung cancer is the #1 cancer killer of both men and women in the U.S. When you think of risk factors for lung cancer, what comes to mind? Most of us think about the risk associated with smoking cigarettes, but did you know that air pollution can also cause lung cancer? Overwhelming evidence shows that particle pollution in the outdoor air we breathe—like that coming from vehicle exhaust, coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources—can cause lung cancer. Particle pollution increases the risk of dying early, heart disease and asthma attacks, and it can also interfere with the growth and function of the lungs.” [American Lung Association,6/20/16]

Cory Gardner (Colorado)

Gardner Refused To Support The CORE Act That Would Protect Over 200,000 Acres Of Colorado Land From Development And Voted Against Reducing Dangerous Methane Pollution On Public Lands.

Cory Gardner Refused To Support The Colorado Outdoor Recreation Economy (CORE) Act That Would Protect Over 200,000 Acres Of Land In Colorado From Oil And Gas Development.

Cory Gardner Did Not Support The CORE Act Even After It Passed The House In October 2019. “While proponents of the CORE Act are celebrating its passage out of the Democratic-controlled U.S. House on Thursday, the bill affecting about 400,000 acres of public lands in Colorado faces an uncertain future in the Republican-led Senate. U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, is raising the alarm over the fact that the legislation passed without the support of U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, a Cortez Republican whose district has the majority of the lands the legislation seeks to address…Tipton voted against the bill on Thursday, arguing that it ‘has not adequately incorporated the necessary feedback from the Western Slope communities which the bill predominantly impacts.’ He expressed his concerns on the House floor, calling for the legislation to be pulled back for further change. Gardner echoed those concerns, saying that while his potential support for the CORE Act is not out of the question, he wants to see a host of changes made to the bill.” [Colorado Sun, 10/31/19]

In July 2020, Cory Gardner Said He Would “Not Stop The CORE Act, But Still Believes More Work Must Be Done On It Before It Passes.” “This week during a visit to Gunnison County, Sen. Cory Gardner said he will not stop the CORE Act, but still believes more work must be done on it before it passes. Gardner visited last Friday to tour the Paul M. Rady Computer Science and Engineering building being constructed on the campus of Western Colorado University, and then met with a handful of students. He also traveled to Lake Irwin and then on to Oh Be Joyful campground north of Crested Butte — although his stop was brief and he did not engage with protestors or media at the site.” [Gunnison Country Times, 7/23/20]

The CORE Act Would Protect Over 200,000 Acres Of Land In Colorado From Oil And Gas Development.  “The CORE Act combines several previous legislative initiatives. Under it, about 200,000 acres in the Thompson Divide area southwest of Glenwood Springs would be withdrawn from future oil and gas leasing. CORE would designate about 73,000 acres of land as wilderness, including acreage in the San Juan Mountains. It would designate the Camp Hale area, where ski troops trained outside Leadville during World War II, as the first-ever National Historic Landscape, and would formally establish the boundary for the long-existing Curecanti National Recreation Area west of Gunnison.” [Daily Sentinel, 6/12/20]

Cory Gardner Voted Against Reducing Methane Emissions From Oil And Gas Drilling On Public Lands.

In 2013, Cory Gardner Voted Against Preserving “The Department Of The Interior’s Ability To Reduce Methane Emissions From Oil And Gas Drilling Operations On Public Lands.” “Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered an amendment to H.R. 2728, the Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, which would preserve the Department of the Interior’s ability to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas drilling operations on public lands. Methane is a super pollutant, a short-lived but potent climate pollutant whose impact, pound-for-pound, is over 20 times greater than carbon dioxide. Methane is also the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States, and natural gas and petroleum production is the largest industrial source of these emissions. In addition to their role in warming our atmosphere, fugitive methane emissions contribute to smog that threatens public health by triggering asthma attacks and aggravating other respiratory conditions.” [LCV, 2013 Scorecard; House Vote 601, 11/20/13]

In 2017, Cory Gardner Voted “To Repeal An Obama-Era Rule Restricting Methane Emissions From Drilling Operations On Public Lands.” In May 2019, Gardner voted to advance H. J. Res. 36, “a resolution to repeal an Obama-era rule restricting methane emissions from drilling operations on public lands.” “The 51-to-49 vote on a procedural motion marked the first time since Trump’s election that Republicans have failed in their attempt to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn Obama-era rules. Thirteen other resolutions, based on the 1996 law that allows Congress to overturn rules within 60 legislative workdays of their adoption, have succeeded.” [Senate Vote 125, 5/10/17; Washington Post, 5/10/17]

• The Resolution Would Have Blocked “Efforts To Reduce Dangerous Methane Pollution Released By The Oil And Gas Industry On Our Public And Tribal Lands.”“Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) sponsored H.J. Res. 36, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ of the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, which would block efforts to reduce dangerous methane pollution released by the oil and gas industry on our public and tribal lands. The Bureau of Land Management’s Methane Rule establishes commonsense standards that require oil and gas companies to deploy readily available, cost-effective measures to reduce methane lost through venting, flaring, and leaks. The rule will help decrease the over $300 million in natural gas that is wasted each year from our public and tribal lands and provide up to $800 million in royalty revenues to states, tribes, and federal taxpayers over the next decade. Additionally, the Methane Rule will reduce the methane pollution that contributes to climate change as well as hazardous air pollutants that damage the health of local communities by contributing to increased asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments.” [LCV, 2017 Scorecard]
• “Dangerous, Localized Pollution” Generated “By Not Addressing Methane Leakage From Both New And Existing Oil And Gas Operations” “Will Annually Cause 1,900 Premature Deaths, 1.1 Million Asthma Attacks, And 3,600 Emergency Room Visits By 2030.” “By not addressing methane leakage from both new and existing oil and gas operations, the toxic soup released during oil and gas operations — including methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous pollutants such as benzene — will generate dangerous, localized pollution that will annually cause 1,900 premature deaths, 1.1 million asthma attacks, and 3,600 emergency room visits by 2030.” [State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, NYU School of Law, March 2019]

Cory Gardner Voted 8 Times To Block Safeguards Against Dangerous Pollutants From Power Plants.

In 2015, Cory Gardner Voted To “Exempt Power Plant Units That Burn ‘Coal Refuse’ Or Waste From Complying With” The EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule And The Mercury And Air Toxics Standards. In January 2015, Gardner voted for “an amendment to S.1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, which would exempt power plant units that burn ‘coal refuse’ or waste from complying with certain clean air and public health protections required under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Communities living downwind from these plants would suffer negative health consequences, ranging from asthma attacks to premature deaths, were these clean air exemptions to become law.” [Senate Vote 9, 1/21/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

• The Mercury And Air Toxics Standards “Targets A Powerful Neurotoxin That Can Affect The IQ And Motor Skills Of Children, Even In Utero.” “The rule in question, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), targets a powerful neurotoxin that can affect the IQ and motor skills of children, even in utero. Between 2006, when states began to curb mercury from coal plants, and 2016, when the Obama-era rule took full effect, emissions declined 85 percent.” [Washington Post, 4/16/20]

• Mercury Has Been “Linked To Brain Damage.” “The Trump administration on Thursday weakened regulations on the release of mercury and other toxic metals from oil and coal-fired power plants, another step toward rolling back health protections in the middle of a pandemic. The new Environmental Protection Agency rule does not eliminate restrictions on the release of mercury, a heavy metal linked to brain damage.” [New York Times, 4/16/20]

Cory Gardner Voted To Allow Unlimited Carbon Pollution By Power Plants. In November 2015, Gardner voted for “S.J. Res. 23, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would block the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon pollution standards for new and modified power plants. S.J. Res. 23 is an extreme measure would permanently block these clean air protections, putting our health at risk and slowing our country’s transition to an economy powered by clean energy.” [Senate Vote 307, 11/17/15;LCV Scorecard]

Cory Gardner Voted To Block The Clean Power Plan’s Protections Against Air Pollution. In November 2015, Gardner voted for S.J. Res. 24, “the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan established the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, our nation’s single largest source of the pollution fueling climate change. S.J. Res. 24 is an extreme measure that would block the biggest step our country has ever taken to address climate change, threatening our health and our future. S.J. Res. 24 would also prohibit the EPA from ever developing “substantially similar” standards in the future.” [Senate Vote 306, 11/17/15;LCV Scorecard]

Cory Gardner Voted For A Massive Giveaway Package For The Fossil Fuel Industry That Would Block Limits On Carbon Pollution. In September 2014, Gardner voted for “H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act, a package of more than a dozen bills all of which had already passed the House. H.R. 2 amounts to a huge giveaway to big polluters and threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the landscapes that support our outdoor economy. The bill also thwarts progress on climate change and compromises communities’ ability to weigh in on projects in their own backyards. HR. 2 would gut the EPA’s ability to limit carbon pollution from power plants.” [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; LCV Scorecard]

Cory Gardner Voted To Prevent The EPA From Addressing Carbon Pollution. In March 2014, Gardner voted for H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, “which would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from limiting carbon emissions from power plants, the nation’s largest source of the pollution driving climate change. The devastating impacts of climate change are occurring right outside our windows in the form of more frequent and severe weather events like droughts, wildfires, floods, and storms. Climate change also threatens public health by increasing smog, which triggers asthma attacks and is especially dangerous for children and those with heart or lung disease. The U.S. already places limits on mercury, arsenic, particulate matter, lead and other pollution from power plants, but this extreme legislation would ensure that power plants remain free to release unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air.” [House Vote 106, 3/06/14; LCV Scorecard]

Cory Gardner Voted To Overturn EPA’s Scientific Findings Recognizing The Dangers Of Carbon Pollution And “Permanently Block The EPA From Reducing These Dangerous Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act.” In September 2012, Gardner voted against an “amendment to H.R. 3409, the so-called Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012, which would remove language from the bill repealing the scientific finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment. EPA scientists have extensively documented that carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases threaten public health by causing more heat waves and intense smog, spreading infectious diseases, and bringing about stronger storms, floods, and hurricanes. Without the Waxman amendment, H.R. 3409 would permanently block the EPA from reducing these dangerous greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.” [House Vote 593, 9/21/12; LCV Scorecard]

Cory Gardner Voted Stop Enforcement Of Regional Haze Air Pollution Rules. In September 2012, Gardner voted for an “amendment to H.R. 3409, the so-called Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012, which would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing air pollution cleanup requirements for many of the nation’s dirtiest and most antiquated coal-fired power plants…The Flake amendment would weaken emissions control requirements and force the EPA to approve state haze cleanup plans that do little or nothing to reduce this dangerous pollution, delaying the reduction of these harmful air pollutants for many years.” [House Vote 600, 9/21/12; LCV Scorecard]

In 2019, Cory Gardner Voted Against A Resolution That Would Have Blocked Trump’s Weak Environmental Rule That Gutted The Clean Power Plan. In October 2019, Gardner voted against S.J. Res. 53, a resolution to “block the implementation of a Trump administration environmental rule that aims to weaken regulations on power plant emissions. The vote, which failed 41 to 53, was largely seen as a protest of the Trump administration’s rollbacks on several environmental protections and climate change mitigation efforts, and offers a roadmap of actions Democrats might take if they win back the Senate in 2020.” [Senate Vote 324, 10/17/19; The Hill, 10/17/19]

Joni Ernst (Iowa)

Ernst Called For Abolishing The EPA, Led Efforts To Block Protections For Clean Water, And Repeatedly Voted To Block Clean Air Protections. And Instead Of Supporting Renewable Energy, She Voted To Protect Subsidies And Benefits For Fossil Fuel Companies.

Joni Ernst Wants To Abolish The EPA, Which “Would Cause An Unravelling Of Basic Protections Of Air And Water.”

In 2014, Joni Ernst Called For Abolishing The EPA: “Let’s Shut Down The EPA.”“Ernst brought up both the Education Department and the EPA in the Republican primary debate on April 24, 2014. One of the moderators asked candidates how they would fund repairs for the nation’s ‘crumbling road and transportation systems.’ Ernst suggested cutting the federal budget to free up funds…While answering the same question that prompted her Education Department response, Ernst also mentioned the EPA. ‘Let’s shut down the EPA,’ she said. Ernst gave the same rationale for this slash in government, saying, ‘The state knows best how to protect resources.’ So, the ad is on solid ground. Ernst did say that she would shut down the EPA.” [PolitiFact, 6/27/14]

• LCV Ran An Ad Against Ernst In 2014 Highlighting How She Wants To “Shut Down The Department Of Education And Abolish The EPA.” “An attack ad aired by the League of Conservation Voters said that Ernst wants to ‘shut down the Department of Education and abolish the EPA.’ In an April debate, Ernst called for the closure of both federal agencies, and her campaign didn’t dispute that. We rate this claim True.” [PolitiFact, 6/27/14] 

Abolishing The EPA “Would Cause An Unravelling Of Basic Protections Of Air And Water.”“Scrapping the EPA, however, would cause an unravelling of basic protections of air and water. Environmental law experts argue it would also be difficult to achieve anyway. The agency, formed in 1970 under Richard Nixon, is empowered to administer federal standards under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. It has also been responsible for controlling or banning chemicals such as the pesticide DDT. Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland, said ditching the EPA was a ‘ridiculous idea’. ‘It reflects a lack of understanding over the US legal system, you’d have to fundamentally repeal or change all our environmental laws,’ he said.” [The Guardian, 2/26/16]

Joni Ernst Introduced Legislation To Permanently Block Obama’s Clean Water Rule, Which Protected Drinking Water Sources For 117 Million Americans, And Repeatedly Voted To Eliminate Safeguards Under The Clean Water Act.

In September 2015, Joni Ernst Introduced S.J.Res.22, A Congressional Review Act Resolution To Permanently Block The Clean Water Rule. Joni Ernst was the primary sponsor of S.J.Res.22, “the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ permanently blocking the EPA and Army Corps’ Clean Water Rule.”[S.J.Res.22, cosponsored 9/17/15; LCV, Press Release, 1/13/16]

• In November 2015, Ernst Voted For S.J.Res.22.[Senate Vote 297, 11/04/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]
• In January 2016, Ernst Voted To Advance S.J.Res.22 In An Attempt To Override President Obama’s Veto.[Senate Vote 5, 1/21/16; LCV, 2016 Scorecard]

Des Moines Register Headline: “House OKs Ernst’s Measure To Block Obama Water Rule.”“The House voted Wednesday to strike down an Obama administration rule that critics say would give the federal government too much authority to oversee wetlands, streams and other small waterways. The resolution passed the House largely along party lines at 253-166, with Iowa’s three Republicans voting for it and Rep. Dave Loebsack, it’s lone Democrat, opposing the resolution. But the vote is expected to be largely symbolic, because the White House has promised to veto the measure. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, had proposed the measure in the Senate, where it passed in November by a 53-44 vote. ‘Today’s House passage of my legislation to scrap the expanded (Waters of the U.S.) rule is a major step forward toward stopping this blatant (Environmental Protection Agency) power grab,’ Ernst said. ‘President Obama must now decide between an unchecked federal agency or the livelihoods of those in our rural communities who say this rule must be stopped.’” [Des Moines Register, 1/14/16]

In June 2015, Joni Ernst CosponsoredS. 1140, A Bill That Would Have Required The EPA To “Withdraw And Re-Propose” The Waters Of The United States Rule That Strengthened That Clean Water Act. S. 1140 “would have required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw and re-propose the regulation that clarifies the scope of the agency’s jurisdiction over ‘waters of the U.S.’ under the Clean Water Act.” The bill was criticized as “yet another attack to halt the already finalized regulations, which went into effect in late August” 2015. [S.1140 – Federal Water Quality Protection Act, cosponsored 6/09/15; National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, 11/04/15]

• Ernst Voted For S. 1140 When It Came To The Senate Floor. Ernst voted for S. 1140, which “would block implementation of [the Obama administration’s] Clean Water Rule and would require the agencies to re-propose another rule, forcing them to go back to the drawing board, repeating processes and soliciting input that they have already received, a waste of time and taxpayer money. In addition, this bill would also severely narrow and undermine the Clean Water Act itself by arbitrarily defining which waterways deserve protection without any basis in science or recognition of the important role of headwaters and seasonal and rain-dependent waters on downstream water quality.” [Senate Vote 295, 11/03/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

The Obama Administration’s Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) Rule Stopped Farmers From Using “Pesticides And Fertilizers That Risk Running Into Waterways,” Which “Has The Potential To Increase The Risk Of Cancer And Other Diseases.” “Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it plans to roll back clean water regulations initiated under the Obama administration as part of the Clean Water Act (CWA)—a move that could end up increasing the amount of toxins entering waterways used for drinking water. […] Their motivation for doing so—at least, in writing—was to ‘eliminate the ongoing patchwork of regulation’ until a revision of the definition for ‘waters of the United States’ can be made. What this means in practical terms is that farmers will not have to seek a permit to use pesticides and fertilizers that risk running into waterways that may later be used as drinking waters. That, in turn, has the potential to increase the risk of cancer and other diseases—although to what extent is hard to say.” [Newsweek, 9/20/19]

• The WOTUS Rule Protected Drinking Water Sources For About 117 Million Americans—One In Three People. “People depend on clean water for their health: About 117 million Americans – one in three people – getdrinking water from small streams that need protection from pollution under the Clean Water Rule. Ourcherished way of life depends on clean water: healthy ecosystems provide wildlife habitat and places tofish, paddle, surf, and swim. Our economy depends on clean water: manufacturing, farming, tourism,recreation, energy production and other economic sectors need clean water to function and flourish.” [EPA, Clean Water Rule Fact Sheet,May 2015]

In 2018, Joni Ernst Voted To Exempt The Shipping Industry From Requirements Under The Clean Water Act, Which Would “Leave Our Waters More Vulnerable To Aquatic Invasive Species.” “Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered S. 1129, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, as an amendment to S. 140. This bill 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. VIDA would shift authority for regulating ballast water away from the EPA and transfer it to the Coast Guard, which runs counter to the pollution discharge regulatory authority given to EPA by the Clean Water Act and would set a dangerous precedent of transferring authority to agencies ill-equipped to handle the responsibility. In addition, VIDA would preempt the states’ ability to protect their waterways from pollution and invasive species by eliminating their capacity to enact and enforce their own ballast water rules. Lastly, VIDA would further jeopardize some of our most iconic water bodies, such as the Great Lakes, by exempting ships in geographically restricted areas from any regulation.” [Senate Vote 77, 4/18/18; LCV, 2018 Scorecard]

In 2018, Joni Ernst Voted To Advance An Amendment To “Repeal The Clean Water Safeguards Established By The 2015 Clean Water Rule.” Ernst voted against tabling an amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019. The amendment “would repeal the clean water safeguards established by the 2015 Clean Water Rule. This Rule protects the waters that feed 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 Lee amendment would subvert the entire 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 our families, communities, and economies depend on.” [Senate Vote 138, 6/21/18; LCV, 2018 Scorecard]

Joni Ernst Repeatedly Voted To Block The Clean Power Plan, A Capstone Obama-Era Climate Change Policy Estimated To Cut Toxic Air Pollutants By 25 Percent.

In 2015, Joni Ernst Voted To Allow Unlimited Carbon Pollution By Power Plants. In November 2015, Ernst voted for “S.J. Res. 23, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would block the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon pollution standards for new and modified power plants. S.J. Res. 23 is an extreme measure would permanently block these clean air protections, putting our health at risk and slowing our country’s transition to an economy powered by clean energy.” [Senate Vote 307, 11/17/15;LCV Scorecard]

In 2015, Joni Ernst Voted To “Permanently Block The” Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. Ernst voted for S.J. Res. 24, “the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan established the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants—our nation’s single largest source of the pollution fueling climate change. S.J. Res. 24 is an extreme measure that would block the biggest step our country has ever taken to address climate change, threatening our health and our future. S.J. Res. 24 would also prohibit the EPA from ever developing ‘substantially similar’ standards in the future.” [Senate Vote 306, 11/17/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

In 2015, Joni Ernst Voted For An Amendment That Would Ban The EPA From Withholding Highway Funds From States That Refuse To Comply With The Clean Power Plan. In March 2015, Ernst voted to pass the McConnell amendment to S. Con. Res. 11, which was an amendment to “prohibit the EPA from withholding highway funds from states that refuse to submit state implementation plans required under the agency’s clean power rule.” [Senate Vote 116, 3/26/15; CQ Summary of Senate Vote 116, 3/26/15]

In 2019, Joni Ernst Voted Against A Resolution That Would Have Blocked The Implementation Of Trump’s Weak Environmental Rule That Gutted The Clean Power Plan. In October 2019, Ernst voted against S.J. Res. 53, a resolution to “block the implementation of a Trump administration environmental rule that aims to weaken regulations on power plant emissions. The vote, which failed 41 to 53, was largely seen as a protest of the Trump administration’s rollbacks on several environmental protections and climate change mitigation efforts, and offers a roadmap of actions Democrats might take if they win back the Senate in 2020.” [Senate Vote 324, 10/17/19; The Hill, 10/17/19]

The Clean Power Plan Was “A Capstone Obama-Era Carbon Pollution Regulation.” “The Trump administration Wednesday finalized a rule to repeal and replace a capstone Obama-era carbon pollution regulation that they argue exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority. The new replacement rule to the Clean Power Plan (CPP), deemed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, aims to give states more time and authority to decide how to implement the best new technology to ease net emissions from coal-fired plants.” [The Hill, 6/19/19]

The Clean Power Plan Set “The First-Ever National Limits On Carbon Pollution From Power Plants,” Showing “That It Is No Longer Acceptable To Put Unlimited Amounts Of Climate Pollution Into Our Air.” “In 2015, President Obama unveiled the final Clean Power Plan, setting the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants — then the nation’s largest source of these emissions. In this historic announcement, the United States said that it is no longer acceptable to put unlimited amounts of climate pollution into our air.” [Environmental Defense Fund, accessed 5/20/20]

The EPA Estimated That The Clean Power Plan Would Cut Toxic Air Pollutants By 25 Percent And Prevent Up To 150,000 Asthma Attacks A Year. “The EPA estimates that the new rule would cut traditional air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot by 25 percent, according to those who have been briefed, yielding a public health benefit of between $55 billion to $93 billion when it is fully implemented with 2,700 to 6600 premature deaths avoided and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks a year avoided. The cost, by contrast, would be $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion. EPA said that for every $1 invested, Americans would reap $7 in health benefits. The EPA also said that even without counting health benefits, the climate benefits would make the proposed regulations worthwhile, saving about $30 billion in 2030.” [Washington Post, 6/02/14]

Joni Ernst Voted To Protect Subsidies And Benefits For The Fossil Fuel Industry And Repeal Anti-Corruption Rules For Fossil Fuel Companies.

In 2016, Joni Ernst Voted Against Phasing “Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies For Coal And Some Of The Largest Producers Of Oil And Gas” That Give “Billions Of Dollars Of Taxpayer Handouts For A Mature And Highly-Polluting Industry.” Ernst voted against an amendment to S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, that “would phase out fossil fuel subsidies for coal and some of the largest producers of oil and gas over a four-year period, the same time period over which Congress recently decided to phase out tax credits for solar and wind. The fossil fuel subsidies phased out by this amendment represent billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts for a mature and highly-polluting industry.” [Senate Vote 14, 2/02/16; LCV, 2016 Scorecard]

In 2017, Joni Ernst Voted To Use The Congressional Review Act To OverturnThe SEC’s “Rule Requiring Fossil Fuel Companies To Publicly Disclose Payments To Governments In Exchange For Oil, Gas, And Minerals.” “Representative Bill Huizenga (R-MI) sponsored H.J. Res. 41, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ of the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) rule requiring fossil fuel companies to publicly disclose payments to governments in exchange for oil, gas, and minerals. This rule helped bring transparency to the flow of money between fossil fuel companies on the U.S. stock exchanges and U.S. and foreign governments, deterring corruption and mismanagement among all parties. This use of the Congressional Review Act, an extreme legislative tool, would not only overturn the current rule, but would prohibit the SEC from ever issuing ‘substantially similar’ regulations in the future. Following its passage in the House, on February 3, the Senate approved H.J. Res. 41 by a vote of 52-47 […] President Trump signed H.J. Res. 41 into law on February 14.” [Senate Vote 51, 2/03/17; LCV, 2017 Scorecard]

In 2015, Joni Ernst Voted Against Closing “A Tax Code Loophole That Exempts Tar Sands Producers From Paying Into The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.” “Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) offered an amendment to S.1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, which would close a tax code loophole that exempts tar sands producers from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Without this fix, taxpayers are on the hook to pay for tar sands spill clean-ups like the ongoing $1.2 billion effort in Kalamazoo, Michigan.” [Senate Vote 19, 1/22/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins Voted To Confirm Trump’s Anti-Environment Judicial Appointees, Like Brett Kavanaugh, And Voted For Trump’s Tax Plan That Gave Big Oil Companies Billions Of Dollars In Tax Credits While Making Maine Families Ultimately Pay More.

Susan Collins Voted To Confirm Trump’s Anti-Environmental Judicial Appointees, Including Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh And Neil Gorsuch, Who Have Threatened Environmental Protections.

Susan Collins “Backed All Trump Judicial Nominees Who Made It To The Senate Floor In 2017 And 2018.” “The Maine senator, who has a record of generally supporting judicial nominees from presidents in both parties, backed all Trump judicial nominees who made it to the Senate floor in 2017 and 2018.” [Bangor Daily News, 6/17/20]

Susan Collins Voted To Confirm Brett Kavanaugh To The U.S. Supreme Court. In October 2018, Collins voted to confirm Kavanaugh, whose “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.” [Senate Vote #223, 10/06/18; LCV, 2018 Scorecard]

As An Appellate Court Judge, Brett Kavanaugh “Pounded The [Obama] Administration In A Series Of Legal Opinions Rebuffing Some Of Its Most High-Profile Air Pollution Rules.” “A Republican operative-turned federal judge has emerged as one of the most powerful critics of President Obama’s environmental rules. Judge Brett Kavanaugh — a 50-year-old George W. Bush administration appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — has pounded the administration in a series of legal opinions rebuffing some of its most high-profile air pollution rules. And because he’s widely seen as an influential voice with Supreme Court justices and a leading contender for a GOP nomination to the high court, Kavanaugh’s legal moves are being closely watched by those on both sides of the environmental debate.” [E&E News, 10/13/15]

In 2012, The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit Vacated The EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.“In a sweeping decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Aug. 21 vacated the U.S. EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, finding that the agency violated federal law by exceeding its authority in setting emissions limits on states.” [SNL Daily Coal Report, 8/22/12]

• Writing For The Majority, “Kavanaugh Held That The CSAPR Required States To Make Emissions Reductions Beyond What Was Required By The Law.” “Writing for the two-judge majority of the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh held that the CSAPR required states to make emissions reductions beyond what was required by the law, and that the EPA trampled on states’ rights by improperly failing to provide the states with an initial opportunity to make reductions on their own accord before imposing federal implementation plans. ‘Congress could well decide to alter the statute to permit or require EPA’s preferred approach to the good neighbor issue,’ Kavanaugh wrote. ‘Unless and until Congress does so, we must apply and enforce the statute as it’s now written.’” [SNL Daily Coal Report, 8/22/12]

In 2016, Brett Kavanaugh Wrote A Dissenting Opinion Opposing The Obama EPA’s Decision To Veto A “Permit For One Of The Largest Mountaintop Removal Coal-Mining Proposals In West Virginia History,” Which Found That It Would Damage Water Quality. “A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s veto of a permit for one of the largest mountaintop removal coal-mining proposals in West Virginia history…The EPA cited the growing scientific evidence that mountaintop removal mining significantly damages water quality downstream and noted an independent engineering study that found Arch Coal could have greatly reduced the Spruce Mine’s impact. …Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in a strongly worded dissenting opinion, said the permit should have been sent back to the EPA with instructions that the agency examine the costs and benefits of its veto action, criticizing the agency’s examination of potential damage to aquatic life as an ‘utterly one-sided analysis.’ ‘The bottom line is that the EPA considered the benefits to animals of revoking the permit, but [the] EPA never considered the costs to humans — coal miners, Mingo Logan’s shareholders, local businesses, and the like — of revoking the permit,” Kavanaugh wrote.’” [Charleston Gazette-Mail, 7/19/16]

Susan Collins Voted To Confirm Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court.“Gorsuch’s record reflects support for corporations at the expense of the public interest. His stance on the “Chevron doctrine” and demonstrated hostility towards the regulatory power of federal agencies could undermine the ability of the EPA Agency to enforce safeguards against polluters. On April 7, the Senate approved Gorsuch’s confirmation by a vote of 54-45.”  [Senate Vote 111, 04/07/17;LCV Scorecard]

• 2016: Gorsuch Wrote “Blistering” Critique of Chevron Doctrine, Which Allows Judges to Defer to Agencies’ Interpretations of Law When Laws of Congress Were “Silent or Ambiguous.”“The so-called Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to federal agencies’ judgment, is a ‘goliath of modern administrative law’ that’s ‘more than a little difficult to square’ with the Founding Fathers’ intentions, a federal judge said yesterday. Neil Gorsuch, a judge in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the son of Reagan-era U.S. EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, called for eliminating the doctrine in a blistering critique of the legal principle. ‘We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again,’ Gorsuch, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in a concurring opinion in a case dealing with the residency of undocumented immigrants. Judge Neil Gorsuch Under the Chevron doctrine, judges defer to agencies’ interpretations of law if Congress is silent or ambiguous on an issue. Named after the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., the doctrine is often cited in court decisions involving environmental regulations.” [E&E News, 8/24/16]

Gorsuch Believed Administrative Agencies Should Have Less Power Than Former Supreme Court Justice Scalia.“In short, Gorsuch definitely has a different take from Scalia on the administrative state — one that grants it less power, and so accords even more closely with the conservative conception of small government. Indeed, this is an area in which Gorsuch is plainly a thought leader, expressing judicial sentiments many conservatives with similar concerns have rarely voiced, and which even Scalia might have bristled at.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/13/17]

Susan Collins Voted To Confirm Neomi Rao, Who “Led Efforts To Roll Back Fundamental Environmental Protections And Misuse The Regulatory Review Process For Partisan Political Purposes” at OIRA, To The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals. “As administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Rao led efforts to roll back fundamental environmental protections and misuse the regulatory review process for partisan political purposes. Rao spent the past 20 years arguing against environmental and other public protections, disparaging efforts to keep our air and water clean as unnecessary burdens on corporate freedom, and even referring to the greenhouse effect as a ‘controversial theory.’ Her long record on this issue, as well as her offensive and demeaning writings on sexual assault, race, and LGBTQ rights made it clear that she is incapable of serving fairly as a federal judge.” [Senate Vote 44, 3/13/19; LCV, 2019 Scorecard]

Susan Collins Voted To Confirm Patrick Wyrick, Who Worked With Scott Pruitt To Challenge “The EPA’s Ability To Protect Public Lands And Clean Air And Address Climate Change,” To The District Court For The Western District Of Oklahoma. “As Solicitor General for Oklahoma, Wyrick was former Oklahoma Attorney General and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s ‘dear friend and trusted counselor’—they worked together on multiple cases that challenged the EPA’s ability to protect public lands and clean air and address climate change. Wyrick’s record also raised serious ethical concerns. He made several inaccurate statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including about his involvement in his wife’s business, his conflicts with oil and gas companies, and his false statements before the U.S. Supreme Court.” [Senate Vote 68, 4/09/19; LCV, 2019 Scorecard]

Susan Collins Voted For Trump’s Tax Reform Bill That Gave Billions Of Dollars In Tax Cuts To Big Oil Companies, While Middle-Class Maine Families End Up Paying More.

Susan Collins Voted For The 2017 Tax Cuts And Jobs Act, The Anti-Environmental Tax Bill That Delivered A Massive Tax Cut For Huge Corporations. “Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) sponsored H.R. 1, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which sells out key environmental priorities to deliver a massive tax cut for millionaires, billionaires, and huge corporations. The bill increases the deficit by $1.5 trillion, harming people nationwide by likely resulting in cuts to safeguards for our air, water, lands and wildlife. The legislation puts our clean energy future at risk while maintaining giveaways to fossil fuel interests. The conference report for H.R. 1 even turns the pristine and sacred Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an industrial oil field…President Trump signed H.R. 1 into law on December 22.” [Senate Vote 323, 12/20/17;2017 LCV Scorecard]

Pacific Standard Analysis: “Just 17 American Oil And Gas Companies Reported A Combined Total Of $25 Billion In Direct One-Time Benefits From The 2017 Tax Cuts And Jobs Act.” “Pacific Standard’s original analysis finds that it is the oil and gas industry, including companies that backed the presidency of Trump and whose former executives and current boosters now populate it, that are among the tax bill’s largest and most long-lasting financial beneficiaries. Just 17 American oil and gas companies reported a combined total of $25 billion in direct one-time benefits from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Many of the companies will also receive millions of dollars in income tax refunds this year. Looking forward, the Tax Act then reduces all corporate annual tax bills by a minimum of 40 percent every year in perpetuity, while adding new benefits that function as government subsidies for the oil and gas industry.” [Pacific Standard, 3/27/18]

• Houston Chronicle Headline: “Oil Companies Dodge Tax Bills Under Trump Reforms, Study Says.” “Some of the biggest names in the oil industry managed to avoid paying any taxes last year under the new tax code President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans passed in 2017. Despite earning billions of dollars in profits, companies like Halliburton, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum and EOG Resources were able to claim tens of millions in tax rebates, according to a study earlier this month by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. They were among 60 of the biggest names in corporate America, including Amazon, General Motors, IBM and Netflix, who collectively received a rebate of $4.3 billion on earnings of $79 billion.” [Houston Chronicle, 4/30/19]

Maine Center For Economic Policy: “Maine Families Pay More Under Final GOP Tax Bill.”“House and Senate Republicans expect to vote on their tax bill early this week after an agreement on its provisions was struck Friday. The deal lowers the top individual rate to 37 percent, lower than either House or Senate versions of the bill, and pegs a new flat corporate tax rate of 21 percent. The deal, if passed by Congress and signed by President Trump, will ultimately increase taxes on the bottom 80 percent of Mainers, while delivering huge tax cuts to profitable corporations, wealthy foreign investors and the richest Americans.” [Maine Center for Economic Policy, 12/19/17]

• “Maine Families Will Pay $88 Million More In Federal Taxes In 2027” Under Trump’s Tax Law. “By 2027, the tax plan skews even more heavily in favor of the rich: The 80 percent of Mainers earning less than $147,000 a year can expect to see their taxes increase on average, while the wealthiest Mainers would still receive significant tax breaks. In total, Maine families will pay $88 million more in federal taxes in 2027 if the current agreement becomes law.” [Maine Center for Economic Policy, 12/19/17]
• Because The Tax Law Repealed The ACA’s Individual Mandate, “The Poorest 20 Percent Of Mainers Will See A $40 Federal Income Tax Increase” In 2020. “The TCJA amounts to a huge raise for the wealthiest Mainers. In 2020, the top 1 percent of Maine households — those with incomes over $520,000 — will receive an average tax cut of $31,090. As a result of the TCJA’s repeal of the individual health insurance coverage mandate, the poorest 20 percent of Mainers will see a $40 federal income tax increase next year.” [Maine Center for Economic Policy, 12/20/19]

Susan Collins Has Taken Over $600,000 In Campaign Contributions From The Oil And Gas Industry.

Susan Collins Has Taken $623,210 In Campaign Contributions From The Oil And Gas Industry. Collins has received $623,210 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry throughout her career in federal politics. [Center For Responsive Politics, accessed 10/28/20]

Susan Collins Has Taken $10,000 From Chevron’s PAC This Cycle Alone.[Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 9/30/20]

Susan Collins Votes With Trump Over 90% Of The Time.

Susan Collins Voted With Trump 91% Of The Time Between 2017 And 2019. Collins voted with Trump 94% in 2017, 94% in 2018, and 85% in 2019. [CQ Vote Studies, 2017-2019]

Susan Collins Voted With Trump 94% Of The Time Between 2017 And 2018. Collins voted with Trump 94% in 2017 and 2018. [CQ Vote Studies, 2017-2019]

John James (Michigan)

James Said He Would Have VotedAgainst Restoring $300 Million In Funding For The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative That Trump Tried To Cut And Opposed The Clean Water Rule That Protected Drinking Water Sources For 117 Million Americans.

John James Said He Would Have Voted Against The 2018 Omnibus Spending Bill That Restored Full $300 Million Funding For The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Which The Trump Administration Proposed Cutting Despite Its “Strong Bipartisan Support.”

In March 2018, John James Tweeted, “I Don’t Support This $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill,” Citing “The Debt And This Insane Process Of Scrambling At The LAST Minute For A Vote.” James tweeted, “I don’t support this $1.3 trillion spending bill. We can’t continue to ignore the debt and this insane process of scrambling at the LAST minute for a vote. Congress must come up with a better process. NO EXCUSES, our troops deserve a real budget and our kids deserve a future!” [Twitter, 3/23/18]

• James Said He Would Have Voted “No” On The Omnibus Bill. In a Facebook comment, Shelly Gregoire asked, “Would John vote for the Omnibus Bill?” James replied, “No.”[Facebook, 3/23/18]

The $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill Restored “The Full $300 Million For The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Which Enjoys Strong Bipartisan Support In Michigan And Other Great Lakes States.” “A must-pass bill to keep the federal government running through September would fully fund the Great Lakes cleanup program targeted for cuts by the White House. The text for the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, released late Wednesday, restores the full $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which enjoys strong bipartisan support in Michigan and other Great Lakes states.” [Detroit News, 3/21/18]

• The Trump Administration “Had Proposed Ending Federal Support For The Program, Which Funds The Cleanup Of Degraded Shorelines, Measures To Combat Invasive Species And The Detection And Prevention Of Toxic Algae Blooms.” “The Trump administration last year had proposed ending federal support for the program, which funds the cleanup of degraded shorelines, measures to combat invasive species and the detection and prevention of toxic algae blooms. Last month, the administration suggested a 90 percent reduction to $30 million for next fiscal year. The spending package now goes before the House and Senate for consideration. Lawmakers must act on it by midnight Friday, when the last short-term funding patch expires, to avoid a partial government shutdown. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has provided more than $600 million in funding to Michigan, according to the office of Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Lansing Democrat who co-chairs the Great Lakes Task Force.” [Detroit News, 3/21/18]
• Detroit News Headline: “Spending Bill Keeps $300M For Great Lakes Cleanup.”[Detroit News, 3/21/18]
• The Bill Was Signed Into Law After Passing The House In March 2018.[R.1625, Actions]

Michigan Democratic Party: “John James Should Have Taken The Time To Actually Read The Bill… Despite Donald Trump’s Continued Efforts To Zero Out Funding To Protect Our Great Lakes, $300 Million In Funding Was Fully Restored To Protect Our State’s Greatest Natural Treasures.” “The Michigan Democratic Party issued the following statement, on behalf of Party Chair Brandon Dillon, in response to Republican U.S. Senate candidate John James’s tweet today declaring his opposition to the omnibus spending bill while making it clear he doesn’t even know what’s in it: ‘Clearly, John James should have taken the time to actually read the bill. If he had, he would know this bill includes a pay increase for our troops and one of the largest investments in years in our military and our veterans.’ ‘If he had kept reading, James would also see that despite Donald Trump’s continued efforts to zero out funding to protect our Great Lakes, $300 million in funding was fully restored to protect our state’s greatest natural treasures. This would not have happened without the leadership of Michigan’s own Senator Debbie Stabenow.’” [Michigan Democratic Party via Medium,3/23/18]

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Has Provided Millions To Protect Critical Wildlife Habitats In Michigan.

2018: GLRI Provided “$980,000 To Michigan To Restore Fish And Wildlife Habitat In Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron.”“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded $980,000 to the state of Michigan [through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative] to restore rock reef in Saginaw Bay and improve fish and wildlife habitat in the Lake Huron watershed. Saginaw Bay is located within Lake Huron on the eastern side of the state of Michigan. Its recreational fishery is currently valued at more than $33 million per year.  ‘Today’s grant illustrates the value of federal and state partnerships in restoring the Great Lakes” said Region 5 Administrator and Great Lakes National Program Manager Cathy Stepp. ‘EPA is proud to invest in a project that will restore important habitat and stimulate the economy of local communities by enhancing the Lake Huron fishery.’” [EPA, Press Release, 4/12/18]

2019: GLRI Provided “$3.7 Million To Remove Stamp Sands From Michigan’s Grand Traverse Harbor.” “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided $3.7 million in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the removal of stamp sands in Grand Traverse Harbor near the town of Gay, Michigan. Dredging is underway and expected to continue through the end of the calendar year. This work is part of the ongoing effort to save Buffalo Reef, an invaluable part of Lake Superior’s habitat. ‘This GLRI funding will help protect one of Lake Superior’s most productive fish spawning areas from encroaching mining waste,’ said Regional Administrator and Great Lakes National Program Director Cathy Stepp. ‘Years of collaboration between EPA and its partners have resulted in on-the-ground action that will deliver meaningful results for Lake Superior’s fish population, beach-front communities and fishing and recreational industries.’” [EPA, Press Release, 8/15/19]

John James Opposed The Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) Rule That Protected Drinking WaterSources For 117 Million Americans.

John James Said That Debbie Stabenow’s Support Of The WOTUS Rule Gave Him “PTSD Flashbacks.” At a campaign event in 2018, James said, “And finally, thank you for having us here the Alexander’s pond. And thank you to our great Senator Debbie Stabenow that pond was going to be property of the United States but—she supported that. But no, I just there’s massive–yeah, no, no Wayne might throw something at me, the waters of the U.S. gives me PTSD flashbacks.” [Carsonville BBQ Event with Dan Lauwers, 8/29/18]

John James Criticized The WOTUS Rule As “Damaging” And “Extreme.”“Peters is a staunch partisan who votes with Chuck Schumer 95% of the time and who supported the damaging, extreme Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule in the House. WOTUS was widely criticized as an example of burdensome federal overreach that restricted family farmers’ operations.” [John James for Senate, 8/13/20]

The Obama Administration’s Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) Rule Stopped Farmers From Using “Pesticides And Fertilizers That Risk Running Into Waterways,” Which “Has The Potential To Increase The Risk Of Cancer And Other Diseases.” “Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it plans to roll back clean water regulations initiated under the Obama administration as part of the Clean Water Act (CWA)—a move that could end up increasing the amount of toxins entering waterways used for drinking water. […] Their motivation for doing so—at least, in writing—was to ‘eliminate the ongoing patchwork of regulation’ until a revision of the definition for ‘waters of the United States’ can be made. What this means in practical terms is that farmers will not have to seek a permit to use pesticides and fertilizers that risk running into waterways that may later be used as drinking waters. That, in turn, has the potential to increase the risk of cancer and other diseases—although to what extent is hard to say.” [Newsweek, 9/20/19]

• The WOTUS Rule Protected Drinking Water Sources For About 117 Million Americans—One In Three People. “People depend on clean water for their health: About 117 million Americans – one in three people – getdrinking water from small streams that need protection from pollution under the Clean Water Rule. Ourcherished way of life depends on clean water: healthy ecosystems provide wildlife habitat and places tofish, paddle, surf, and swim. Our economy depends on clean water: manufacturing, farming, tourism,recreation, energy production and other economic sectors need clean water to function and flourish.” [EPA, Clean Water Rule Fact Sheet,May 2015]

Steve Daines (Montana)

Daines Proposed Stripping Protections From Over 400,000 Acres Of Montana Wilderness And Voted To Lay The Groundwork For Selling Off Our Public Lands. Daines Even Voted To Cut $16 Million From LWCF, Which He Claims To Support.

Steve Daines Introduced A Bill To Strip Wilderness Protections From Over 400,000 Acres Of Montana Public Land, The “Largest Reduction In Protected Public Lands In Montana History.”

Steve Daines Introduced S.2206, The Protect Public Use Of Public Lands Act, Which Would Remove Wilderness Protections From 449,500 Acres Of Montana Land.In December 2017, Steve Daines introduced S.2206, the Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act, which would “remove 449,500 acres in Montana’s Wilderness Study Areas.” The bill would “[release] the West Pioneer, Blue Joint, Sapphire, Middle Fork Judith, and Big Snowies wilderness study areas in Montana from further review for designation as wilderness.” [S.2206 – Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act, introduced 12/07/17; Great Falls Tribune, 12/07/17]

• The Bill Would Have Led To The “Largest Reduction In Protected Public Lands In Montana History.”“On Dec. 7, Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., introduced a bill that would eliminate wilderness protection from the Big Snowies as well as from another 358,500 acres of Montana wilderness study areas. The bill would release all these acres of national forest to normal multiple use management — effectively the largest reduction in protected public lands in Montana history.” [High Country News, 2/02/18]

Removing The Wilderness Study Designation Could Allow Logging On The Newly Released Public Lands, According To The Associate Deputy Of The U.S. Forest Service. “Rep. Greg Gianforte on Thursday defended his bills to remove the wilderness study designation from 800,000 acres of public lands in Montana, a move supported by stockgrowers and motorized groups but opposed by wildlife and wilderness advocates. […] Chris French, associate deputy of the U.S. Forest Service, also supported releasing the WSAs. If the legislation were approved, he said, the areas would be managed under the ‘applicable Forest Service direction.’ Chris French, associate deputy of the U.S. Forest Service, also supported releasing the WSAs. If the legislation were approved, he said, the areas would be managed under the ‘applicable Forest Service direction.’ Responding to a question from Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-PA, French said that could include logging.” [Missoula Current, 6/21/18]

Montana Wilderness Association: Daines’ Bill “Would Represent The Single Biggest Loss Of Protected Public Lands In Our State’s History.”

Montana Wilderness Association: “If This Bill Were To Pass, It Would Represent The Single Biggest Loss Of Protected Public Lands In Our State’s History.”“Today, Sen. Daines sabotaged Montana’s wild legacy. He introduced a bill that would strip protection from nearly a half-million acres of our wildest and most pristine public lands. And he did so without holding a single public meeting or a single town hall for Montanans to discuss his bill. His bill would remove protection from five wilderness study areas (WSAs): West Pioneer (151,000 acres), Blue Joint (32,500 acres), Sapphire (94,000), Middle Fork Judith (81,000), and Big Snowies (91,000). If this bill were to pass, it would represent the single biggest loss of protected public lands in our state’s history.” [Montana Wilderness Association, 12/07/17]

Steve Daines Was Widely Criticized For Crafting The Bill Without Local Input.

Critics Said Steve Daines “Bypassed The Public Process And Acted Unilaterally Without Soliciting Public Feedback” When He Introduced The Protect Public Use Of Public Lands Act With Greg Gianforte. In February 2018, “Ravalli County and several other counties came under fire for signing a letter of support urging Daines to release the five wilderness study areas included in the Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act. But critics said Daines – as well as the counties – bypassed the public process and acted unilaterally without soliciting public feedback. The criticism forced Ravalli County to hold a legitimate public hearing that saw around 75 people testify, with the vast majority of them urging the county to rescind its support for Daines’ legislation. Gianforte has come under similar criticism for only seeking feedback from those who support his effort to release public lands to local control and, some contend, future privatization.” [Missoula Current, 3/02/18]

Montana Wilderness Association: “With This Bill, Sen. Daines Would Sabotage The Wild Legacy Montanans Expect To Pass On To Our Children – All Without Any Public Input.” “‘This divisive, top-down legislation would deprive Montanans of having a say on nearly a half-million acres of our wildest, most pristine public lands,’ Ben Gabriel, executive director of Montana Wilderness Association, said in a statement. ‘With this bill, Sen. Daines would sabotage the wild legacy Montanans expect to pass on to our children – all without any public input. Decisions involving future management of these areas must include input gathered from communities closest to these areas, while recognizing these public lands belong to all Americans.’” [Great Falls Tribune, 12/07/17]

Steve Daines Voted To “Lay The Groundwork” For The Sale Or Transfer Of Federal Lands To State And Local Governments, Potentially Opening Them To Drilling, Logging, And Mining.

In 2015, Steve Daines Voted For An Amendment That Could Allow “The Sale, Transfer Or Exchange Of Federal Lands, Including Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, National Forests, And National Memorials To State And Local Governments,” Potentially Opening Them To “Oil And Gas Drilling, Logging, Mining, And Other Development.” “Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered an amendment to S. Con. Res. 11, the Senate version of the FY16 budget, which would authorize the sale, transfer or exchange of federal lands, including wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, national forests, and national memorials to state and local governments. The Murkowski amendment would allow states to take control of some of our nation’s most cherished places and sell them off to private interests for oil and gas drilling, logging, mining, and other development.” [Senate Vote 106, 3/26/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

• Daines Was The Deciding Vote In Favor Of The Amendment, Which Passed 51-49. “Sen. Murkowski’s amendment passed 51 to 49 in the Senate. Three Republican Senators voted against the measure, but Sen. Daines was not among them. Instead, he cast the deciding vote in support.” [Senate Vote 106, 3/26/15; Montana Wilderness Association, 3/27/15]

The Amendment “Sets Up A Reserve Fund For Any Future Legislation Selling Or Transferring Federal Lands” And, According To Opponents, “Lays The Groundwork For Such Actions To Occur.” “The federal amendment, brought in March by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, sets up a reserve fund for any future legislation selling or transferring federal lands. It does not authorize any sales or transfers, but opponents have argued that the reserve fund lays the groundwork for such actions to occur. The amendment passed the Senate 51-49, with Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines voting for and Democratic Sen. Jon Tester against.” [Montana Standard, 5/01/15]

Billings Gazette Editorial Board: Steve Daines “Voted To Put In Place The Mechanism That Would Allow Federal Lands To Be Sold.” “Senate candidate Steve Daines told The Billings Gazette Editorial Board when he was running for office that he didn’t think transferring federal lands was ‘feasible.’ That was then. This is now. U.S. Sen. Steve Daines was one of the senators who voted to put in place the mechanism that would allow federal lands to be sold. After the vote, which nearly instantly earned him a backlash of rebuke from sportsmen and conservation groups — two formidable Montana camps — his staff was being put to their verbal best trying to explain the vote.” [Billings Gazette (Editorial), 4/03/15]

Billings Gazette Editorial Board: “Any Sell-Off Of Federal Lands Would Likely Require Large Management Costs For The State Of Montana,” Which Would “Have To Increase Taxes Or Sell The Land To The Highest Bidder.” “In other words, Daines voted with Murkowski to create the very process that would allow the federal government to sell off its lands to states. We’ve reported previously that any sell-off of federal lands would likely require large management costs for the state of Montana, which in turn would either have to increase taxes or sell the land to the highest bidder. If the latter option happened, public lands in Montana would become private, robbing future generations of Americans (not just Montanans) of what should be a birthright.” [Billings Gazette (Editorial), 4/03/15]

“The Amendment Would Fund Transfers Of Federal Lands Including National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, Historic Sites, And National Monuments, To The Individual States.” “Murkowski’s amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution in March had progressive environmentalists and sportsmen groups upset and concerned. The amendment would fund transfers of federal lands including national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments, to the individual states. Opponents argue land transfer is a first step toward selling public lands to resource extraction companies. The amendment was approved 51-49, with Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines voting for it, while Democratic Sen. Jon Tester voted against.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 4/23/15]

Montana Standard Headline: “Daines Blasted For Vote On Federal Land Transfer Amendment.” “Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines came under fire from conservation groups and outdoor-related business interests Friday after his vote for an amendment critics say is a first step to federal land transfer or sale… Conservation groups and outdoor business interests joined in criticism of the vote, with some accusing Daines of reversing his stance opposing federal land sales or transfers.” [Montana Standard, 3/28/15]

Steve Daines Voted To Cut $16 Million From The Land And Water Conservation Fund—And Hypocritically Appeared At A Pro-LWCF Rally Hours Before Voting To Slash Its Funding.

In 2018, Steve Daines Voted For An Anti-Environment Recission Package That Would Have Slashed Funding For The Land And Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) By $16 Million. “Representative 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 proposed by the Trump administration irresponsibly rescinds funding levels agreed upon through Congress, and much of the funding that H.R. 3 would cut have been identified for future use and could continue to support projects and communities across the country.” [Senate Vote 134, 6/20/18; LCV, 2018 Scorecard]

• LWCF “Gets Most Of Its Money From A Portion Of The Profits Derived From Offshore Oil And Gas Development” At “Zero Cost For Taxpayers.” “The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 with bipartisan support to protect national parks, water resources and wildlife areas and make them available to the public for recreation. The fund gets most of its money from a portion of the profits derived from offshore oil and gas development, which Burr repeatedly highlighted as a zero cost for taxpayers. ‘We think its America’s best public parks program,’ said Alex Taurel, a deputy legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters. “It’s funded everything from expansions of national parks in really iconic places like the Grand Canyon and the Appalachian Trail, to local baseball diamonds, recreation centers, even Civil War and Revolutionary War era battlefields, touching every single congressional district, every state and nearly every county.’” [Roll Call, 7/19/18]

Steve Daines Hypocritically Appeared At A Rally In Support Of LWCF Hours Before He Voted To Cut Its Funding.“The reality is it s not enough to speak at a press conference about it or be a cosponsor of a bill, Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director at the League of Conservation Voters, told National Journal. ‘We re disappointed by Senators [Steve] Daines and [Cory] Gardner for saying they support the bill in the morning and then in the afternoon turning around to cut the program.’ Taurel’s time frame isn’t figurative. Daines and Gardner joined Burr, as well as Sen. Maria Cantwell, early Wednesday to champion LWCF reauthorization at a press conference on Capitol Hill. Hours later, Daines and Gardner voted to advance the rescissions package, which included the $16 million LWCF cut.” [National Journal, 6/24/18]

Steve Daines Voted Against Reauthorizing The Land And Water Conservation Fund. 

In 2015, Steve Daines Voted Against An Amendment That Would Reauthorize The Land And Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), As Well As “Provide Funds To Increase Access To Public Lands That May Otherwise Be Inaccessible.”“Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) offered an amendment to S.1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, which would reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), America’s premier conservation program whose authorization expired on September 30, 2015. LWCF has been a 50-year conservation success story, improving open space and outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans. The Burr amendment would also provide funds to increase access to public lands that may otherwise be inaccessible.” [Senate Vote 43, 1/29/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

Thom Tillis (North Carolina)

In Congress, Tillis Introduced A Bill To Encourage Offshore Drilling, Which Would Threaten North Carolina’s Economy And Coastal Communities And Repeatedly Voted To Gut Protections For Our Air And Water.

Thom Tillis Cosponsored And Voted For A Bill To Encourage Offshore Drilling On The Outer Continental Shelf, Which Would Hurt Our Economy, Environment, And Coastal Communities.

Thom Tillis Cosponsored And Voted For A Bill That Would “Expand Revenue Sharing From Offshore Drilling On The Outer Continental Shelf, Which Creates Incentives For Additional Offshore Drilling That Damages Our Climate And Coastal Communities, Businesses, And Ecosystems.” Tillis cosponsored and voted for S. 3110, the American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016, “which would expand revenue sharing from offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which creates incentives for additional offshore drilling that damages our climate and coastal communities, businesses, and ecosystems. Offshore drilling inevitably leads to oil spills, which puts at risk coastal communities’ robust tourism and commercial and recreational fishing industries, as well as critically important wildlife, while impeding America’s transition to clean energy. Revenue sharing also siphons revenues away from the Treasury and directs them to a handful of states at a time when we are struggling to address our nation’s fiscal challenges.” [Senate Vote 153, 11/17/16;LCV Scorecard]

Thom Tillis Said He Supported Exploratory Offshore Drilling Because It Would “Give Us An Opportunity To Have Less Of A Carbon Footprint,” And “Be Of Benefit To The Economy.”“Finally, on the subject of offshore energy – both for exploratory drilling and renewable energy like wind turbines – Rep. Tillis said he thinks the country is in a position to create a comprehensive energy portfolio and become an energy exporter. ‘I think we do need to do some exploratory drilling,’ he said. ‘Not only does it give us an opportunity to have less of a carbon footprint, it’ll be of benefit to the economy.’” [Carteret County News-Times, 4/05/14]

Winston-Salem Journal Editorial Board: “It Only Takes One [Offshore Drilling] Disaster To Cost Lives, Destroy Economies And Leave Environmental Degradation That Would Affect Generations.” “Our precious coast is not worth the risk. As for the promise of jobs, we’ve already got them and offshore drilling would threaten them…To which we reply: Deepwater Horizon. It only takes one disaster to cost lives, destroy economies and leave environmental degradation that would affect generations. From Louisiana to Florida, they’re still recovering.” [Winston-Salem Journal, 3/01/18]

Rev. Joseph A. Darby, First Vice President For The Charleston Branch NAACP: “A Coastal Environmental Catastrophe Would Have Its Most Devastating Impact On Already Struggling Black Communities.” According to a column by Rev. Joseph A. Darby, senior pastor at Nichols Chapel AME Church and first vice president for the Charleston Branch NAACP, “The additional possibility of a major accidental oil spill cannot be ignored. America’s Gulf Coast is still recovering from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which led to catastrophic decimation of bird and marine life and left oil-soaked beaches in its wake…One specific and chronic African-American concern should also be noted. Most of America’s ‘Superfund’ sites – areas that are badly polluted and have been poisoned by careless industrial enterprise – are located adjacent to black communities. Environmental racism is a reality. A coastal environmental catastrophe would have its most devastating impact on already struggling black communities, both in terms of economic impact and quality of life.” [Post and Courier, 12/01/18]

Thom Tillis Voted Three Times To Block Protections Against Dangerous Pollution From Power Plants.

In 2019, Thom Tillis Voted In Favor Of Implementing Trump’s Weak Environmental Rule That Gutted The Clean Power Plan. In October 2019, Tillis voted against S.J. Res. 53, a resolution to “block the implementation of a Trump administration environmental rule that aims to weaken regulations on power plant emissions. The vote, which failed 41 to 53, was largely seen as a protest of the Trump administration’s rollbacks on several environmental protections and climate change mitigation efforts, and offers a roadmap of actions Democrats might take if they win back the Senate in 2020.” [Senate Vote 324, 10/17/19; The Hill, 10/17/19]

In 2015, Thom Tillis Voted To “Block The Environmental Protection Agency’s Carbon Pollution Standards For New And Modified Power Plants.” “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sponsored S.J. Res. 23, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would block the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon pollution standards for new and modified power plants. S.J. Res. 23 is an extreme measure would permanently block these clean air protections, putting our health at risk and slowing our country’s transition to an economy powered by clean energy.” [Senate Vote 307, 11/17/15;LCV Scorecard]

In 2015, Thom Tillis Voted To Permanently Block The Clean Power Plan. “Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) sponsored S.J. Res. 24, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ that would permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan established the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, our nation’s single largest source of the pollution fueling climate change. S.J. Res. 24 is an extreme measure that would block the biggest step our country has ever taken to address climate change, threatening our health and our future. S.J. Res. 24 would also prohibit the EPA from ever developing ‘substantially similar’ standards in the future. On November 17, the Senate approved S.J. Res. 24 by a vote of 52-46.” [Senate Vote 306, 11/17/15;LCV Scorecard]

Thom Tillis Voted To Block Obama’s Clean Water Rule That Protected Drinking Water Sources For 117 Million Americans.

In 2015, Thom Tillis Voted To Block Obama’s Clean Water Rule And Require “Agencies To Re-Propose Another Rule.” “Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) sponsored S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, a radical assault on the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Clean Water Rule, which protects the small streams and wetlands that feed into the drinking water of one in three Americans. S. 1140 would block implementation of the current Clean Water Rule and would require the agencies to re-propose another rule, forcing them to go back to the drawing board, repeating processes and soliciting input that they have already received, a waste of time and taxpayer money. In addition, this bill would also severely narrow and undermine the Clean Water Act itself by arbitrarily defining which waterways deserve protection without any basis in science or recognition of the important role of headwaters and seasonal and rain-dependent waters on downstream water quality.” [Senate Vote 295, 11/03/15; LCV, 2015 Scorecard]

In 2015, Thom Tillis Voted To Repeal The Waters Of The United States Rule That Protects Sources Of Drinking Water For 117 Million Americans.“Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) sponsored S.J. Res. 22, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval,’ which would void the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Clean Water Rule that protects the small streams and wetlands that feed into the drinking water of 117 million Americans. Not only would this obscure and radical measure vacate the current rule, it would also prohibit the agencies from developing any ‘substantially similar’ rule in the future, keeping the unworkable status quo in place leaving our streams, wetlands, lakes, and rivers vulnerable to pollution for generations to come. On November 4, the Senate approved S.J. Res. 22 by a vote of 53-44.” [Senate Vote 297, 11/04/15;LCV Scorecard]

Thom Tillis Voted To Overturn The Interior Department’s Stream Protection Rule That Protected Water And Ecosystems From Toxic Coal Mining Waste.

In 2017, Thom Tillis Voted To OverturnThe Interior Department’s Stream Protection Rule, Which Set “Commonsense Requirements For Coal Mining That Will Better Protect Ground Water, Surface Water, And Ecosystems From Toxic Coal Mining Waste.”“Representative Bill Johnson (R-OH) sponsored H.J. Res. 38, the Congressional Review Act ‘Resolution of Disapproval’ of the Stream Protection Rule, which would threaten the drinking water and public health of communities living near coal mining operations by permanently blocking the Department of Interior’s recently finalized Stream Protection Rule. This important rule sets out commonsense requirements for coal mining that will better protect ground water, surface water, and ecosystems from toxic coal mining waste, which has been linked to increased rates of cancer, birth defects, and other health problems in nearby communities. The rule will protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, sets up new requirements for water quality monitoring and restoration, and generally compels coal mining companies to reduce their impact on the surrounding environment.” [Senate Vote 43, 2/02/17; LCV, 2017 Scorecard]

Thom Tillis Voted Against Designating Cancer-Causing “Forever Chemicals” As Hazardous Substances, Which Would “Trigger Faster Cleanups And Allow The Environmental Protection Agency To Recover Costs From Polluters.” 

Thom Tillis “Voted Against An Amendment To A Defense Policy Bill…That Would Have Designated Two Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) As Hazardous Under Title X Of The U.S. Code. “U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis backs legislation that would declare a broad class of toxic substances as hazardous under the EPA, but he recently opposed a similar effort that would apply only to the U.S. Department of Defense. Tillis, a freshman Republican who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, voted against an amendment to a defense policy bill last month that would have designated two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous under Title X of the U.S. Code — the law governing the Defense Department. Doing so would have given the department more discretion to use funds to clean up contaminated areas, recover related costs from polluters, and reimburse communities for cleanup efforts.” [NC Policy Watch, 7/13/20]

Designating PFAS As Hazardous Substances Would “Trigger Faster Cleanups And Allow The Environmental Protection Agency To Recover Costs From Polluters.” The PFAS Action Act, which has both Democratic and Republican cosponsors, would require the EPA to designate PFAS “as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.” “The hazardous substance designation would trigger faster cleanups and allow the Environmental Protection Agency to recover costs from polluters.” [H.R.535 – PFAS Action Act of 2019, Congress.gov, introduced 1/14/19; MLive, 7/10/19]

The Environmental Working Group Found That “Tap Water Across The United States Is Contaminated To A Much Higher Degree Than Previously Known” By PFAS, Or “Forever Chemicals.” “Even as the Trump administration beats a disturbing retreat on environmental protections, tap water across the United States is contaminated to a much higher degree than previously known, contends a new report from the Environmental Working Group. ‘Forever chemicals,’ also known as perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are resistant to breaking down and may affect hundreds of millions of Americans. Some of the chemicals classified as PFAS may cause cancer, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems.” [News & Record (Editorial), 2/02/20]

• Of The 44 Tap Water Samples From 31 States, “The Highest Rate Of Contamination Was Found” In North Carolina. The Environmental Working Group “took tap water samples from 44 places in 31 states, including Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New York suburbs. And the highest rate of contamination was found … in Brunswick County on the North Carolina coast. Water tested from there contained 185.9 parts per trillion, far above the EPA’s current recommended limit of 70 ppt. Only one location, in Mississippi, had no traceable amounts of the chemicals.” [News & Record (Editorial) 2/02/20]
• News & Observer Headline: “Drinking Water In This NC County Has The Most ‘Forever Chemicals’ In The US, Study Says.” “An Eastern North Carolina county had highest the rate in the country for water contaminated with certain chemicals, according to a study released this week. Brunswick County had the most PFAS contamination, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, of 44 water samples taken across the nation in 2019, the Environmental Working Group said in its study released Wednesday. PFAS are ‘a group of man-made chemicals’ that include GenX, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Also among them are PFOA and PFOs, which have been used in industries around the world, including the United States.” [News & Observer, 1/24/20]