- Full (HTML) - Related EHP Articles - Purchase This Issue

John Tibbetts

Abstract

Both environmentalists and deregulationists have written "report cards" for the 1995–1996 104th session of Congress, rating the legislators on how well or badly they served the environment. This was a momentous session for environmentalists, with the new Republican majority introducing several measures with possibly negative implications for the environment.

In An Environmental Report Card on the 104th Congress, author H. Sterling Burnett says that "what did not [pass] was more important than what did." He sees the 104th Congress as a series of missed opportunities, with wide-reaching measures being ignored in favor of narrower measures.

Burnett chose which laws to discuss based on whether the laws improve human health and environmental quality, whether they reduce regulatory burdens, whether they improve science in environmental policy, and whether they "expand individuals' liberty and their opportunities to increase their wealth and satisfy their desires."

In the National Environmental Scorecard, published by the League of Conservation Voters, each member of Congress is assigned a score from zero to 100 based on the percentage of times he or she voted in agreement with the LCV. The Scorecard says it "only includes votes on which members of Congress were faced with a real choice on whether or not to protect the environment." For example, passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization "was not a true indicator of who was supportive of the environment," says Paul Brotherton, editor of the Scorecard, because it had been "worked out in committee, and when it came to the floor, it was a done deal."

With an upcoming proposal to increase the EPA's research budget, the next session of Congress should be lively. But the Republicans took a public relations beating during 1995 and 1996, and some congressional trackers think they will scale back their ambitions during the 105th session.

Last Update: September 3, 1997