scorecard · 2 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 national environmental scorecard · lcv 2018 overview we...

scorecard.lcv.org

scorecard2018 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

Our Earth Is Worth Fighting For

S E C O N D S E S S I O N O F T H E 1 1 5 T H C O N G R E S S

LCV SCORECARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE *

LCV ISSUES & ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE *

LCV BOARD OF DIRECTORS *

* Organizations are shown for identification purposes only

JOHN H. ADAMSNatural Resources Defense Council

CRISTÓBAL ALEX Latino Victory Project

BRENT BLACKWELDER, HONORARYFriends of the Earth

THE HONORABLE SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, VICE CHAIRThe Accord Group

THE HONORABLE CAROL BROWNER, CHAIRFormer EPA Administrator

BRENDON CECHOVICWestern Conservation Foundation

CARRIE CLARKNorth Carolina League of Conservation Voters

ELAINE FRENCH John and Elaine French Family Foundation

WADE GREENE, HONORARYRockefeller Family & Associates

STEVE HOLTZMANBoies Schiller Flexner LLP

RAMPA R. HORMEL, HONORARY Enlyst Fund

JOHN HUNTING, HONORARYJohn Hunting & Associates

MICHAEL KIESCHNICKGreen Advocacy Project

ROGER KIMDemocracy Alliance

MARK MAGAÑAGreenLatinos

WINSOME MCINTOSH, HONORARYThe McIntosh Foundation

MOLLY MCUSICWyss Foundation

WILLIAM H. MEADOWS IIIThe Wilderness Society

REUBEN MUNGERVision Ridge Partners, LLC

SCOTT NATHANCenter for American Progress

BILL ROBERTSCorridor Partners

LARRY ROCKEFELLERAmerican Conservation Association

THEODORE ROOSEVELT IV, HONORARY CHAIRBarclays Capital

KERRY SCHUMANN Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters

LAURA TURNER SEYDELTurner Foundation

TRIP VAN NOPPENEarthjustice

KATHLEEN WELCHCorridor Partners

ANTHA WILLIAMS Bloomberg Philanthropies

REVEREND LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.Hip Hop Caucus

BRENT BLACKWELDERFriends of the Earth

THE HONORABLE CAROL BROWNERFormer EPA Administrator

RUTH HENNIGThe John Merck Fund

SUNITA LEEDSEnfranchisement Foundation

MARK MAGAÑAGreenLatinos

REUBEN MUNGERVision Ridge Partners, LLC

KERRY SCHUMANNWisconsin League of Conservation Voters

TRIP VAN NOPPENEarthjustice

CAROL ANDRESS Environmental Defense Fund

KRISTEN BRENGEL National Parks Conservation Association

ANA UNRUH COHENNatural Resources Defense Council

ALISON CASSADYCenter for American Progress

ROBERT COWINUnion of Concerned Scientists

LAURA DANIEL DAVISNational Wildlife Federation

ROBERT DEWEYDefenders of Wildlife

MARTY HAYDENEarthjustice

CRAIG LASHERPopulation Action International

JESSICA LOYAGreenLatinos

DREW MCCONVILLEThe Wilderness Society

KRISTEN MILLER Alaska Wilderness League

KATIE MURTHA Environment America

MELINDA PIERCESierra Club

LUKAS ROSSFriends of the Earth

ERIK SCHNEIDER National Audubon Society

CONTENTS1. ANALYSISOverview of the 2nd Session of the 115th Congress 2

Voting Summary 4

2. SENATE SCORESVote Descriptions 7

Senate Votes 12

3. HOUSE SCORESVote Descriptions 18

House Votes 30

The nonprofit League of Conservation Voters (LCV)

has published a National Environmental Scorecard

every Congress since 1970, the year it was founded

by leaders of the environmental movement following

the first Earth Day. LCV believes our earth is worth fighting for

because everyone has a right to clean air, water, lands and a

safe, healthy community.

This edition of the National Environmental Scorecard pro-

vides objective, factual information about the most important

environmental legislation considered and the corresponding

voting records of all members of the second session of the

115th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of

experts from about 20 respected environmental and conser-

vation organizations who selected the key votes on which

members of Congress should be scored. LCV scores votes on

the most important issues of the year, including energy, cli-

mate change, public health, public lands and wildlife conser-

vation, and spending for environmental programs. The votes

included in this Scorecard presented members of Congress

with a real choice and help distinguish which legislators are

working for environmental protection. Except in rare circum-

stances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the en-

vironment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

Dedicated environmentalists and national leaders volun-

teered their time to identify and research crucial votes. We

extend special thanks to our Board of Directors, Issues & Ac-

countability Committee, and Scorecard Advisory Committee

for their valuable input.

2 scorecard.lcv.org|2018NationalEnvironmentalScorecard·LCV

2018 OVERVIEW

We are thrilled that the 2018 National Environmental Scorecard is the last of an eight-year

reign by the most anti-environmental U.S. House of Representatives in history. The tectonic

shift to a pro-environment majority comes not a moment too soon, as the Trump administra-

tion has continued its unrelenting assault on our air, water, lands and wildlife—all to ben-

efit its corporate polluter allies. The attacks on the environment and public health from the

Trump administration and the House of Representatives throughout 2018 were all the more

egregious in light of the record-breaking climate-change-fueled extreme weather our nation

experienced—from the deadliest wildfire in California’s history to more intense hurricanes

along the east coast—in the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by 2015, 2016, and

2017. It’s clear that climate change is having devastating impacts on people across the coun-

try, particularly those from low-income and communities of color.

The 2018 National Environmental Scorecard details

how the extreme leadership in the House of Rep-

resentatives failed to protect our environment and

public health or combat the climate crisis. Instead,

as the votes show, they continued to serve as a

rubber stamp on the Trump administration’s attacks

and once again pushed their own breathtakingly

anti-environmental agenda. The 35 scored votes

chronicle the breadth and depth of the chamber’s

destructive efforts from allowing more toxic pollu-

tion into our air to removing protections for endan-

gered species to slashing clean energy funding.

The good news is that, by and large, this legislation

was dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. Thanks to

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and

the “Green Firewall” of defense, the overwhelming

majority of the House’s harmful legislative propos-

als didn’t even come up for a vote. The Senate’s 14

scored votes were instead predominately efforts

to confirm President Trump’s radical nominees to

the federal judiciary and the executive branch. It

is clear that in the absence of meaningful legisla-

tive action, one of the most damaging legacies of

Trump’s presidency will be reshaping the federal

judiciary with his nomination of extreme and parti-

san candidates for lifetime appointments. In par-

ticular, the Supreme Court wields immense power

over the interpretation of our bedrock environmen-

tal protections. Brett Kavanaugh’s extensive anti-

environmental record, coupled with the credible

allegations of sexual assault against him, led us

to take the rare step of scoring two separate floor

votes on the same matter—Kavanaugh’s confirma-

tion to the Supreme Court. In positive news, two

extreme judicial picks—Ryan Bounds and Thomas

Farr—failed to proceed after Senator Tim Scott

(R-SC) joined Democrats in opposing their nomina-

tions based on their troubling records.

The Scorecard also includes votes on several ex-

treme nominees to serve in the Trump administra-

tion, a continuation of a trend from the 2017 Score-

card, which featured votes on a slew of nominees

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

who went on to do tremendous damage after tak-

ing up their posts. Fortunately, public pressure and

opposition to the horrendous policies and scandals

that engulfed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke helped push them out

of the Trump administration.

The year concluded with Trump’s zealous refusal to

sign a government funding bill that didn’t include

money to build his racist and anti-environmental

wall along our southern border. Across both cham-

bers, we scored several votes seeking to build the

wall and promote other harmful anti-immigrant

policies. Trump’s obsession with this xenophobic

border wall caused a 35-day government shut-

down—the longest in U.S. history—that shuttered or

exposed America’s majestic national parks to harm,

furloughed EPA workers who protect our communi-

ties from pollution, and forced hundreds of thou-

sands of federal workers to go without pay.

Despite the many attacks on the environment

and public health from the House and the Trump

administration, there were a few instances of bi-

partisan cooperation, largely thanks to leadership

from the Senate. This included the passage into

law of a pro-conservation Farm Bill and a Water

Resources Development Act that takes important

steps forward on water infrastructure as well as a

bipartisan agreement in the Senate to avoid new

anti-environmental and other harmful policy riders

in appropriations bills.

Overall, the 2018 scores reveal fairly stark polar-

ization between the parties. Seven Republican

senators received a score of zero percent in 2018,

meaning they voted against the environment and

public health at every opportunity. In sharp con-

trast, 35 Democratic senators and one independent

senator earned a perfect score of 100 percent.

In the Senate, Democrats, and the independents

who caucus with them, averaged 95 percent,

while Republicans averaged eight percent. On the

House side, 77 Republicans earned a zero percent

and 29 Democrats earned a perfect score of 100

percent. The House Democratic caucus averaged

90 percent, whereas the House Republican caucus

averaged eight percent.

As we begin 2019, we couldn’t be more excited to

work with the new, pro-environment House major-

ity to hold the Trump administration accountable

and make real progress in the 116th Congress.

Under the strong, proven leadership of Speaker

Pelosi, this exciting new majority looks more like

the country as a whole, campaigned on a mes-

sage of action on climate, healthy communities and

protection of public lands, and now clearly has a

mandate to stop the corporate polluters’ agenda in

its tracks. While we anticipate that the Trump ad-

ministration and the Republican leadership in the

Senate will prevent major pro-environment legisla-

tion from becoming law, there are opportunities

to make significant progress in states across the

country this year. LCV and our state LCV partners

are more determined than ever to maximize that

progress in the months and years to come. This

change is coming when we need it most—because

the stakes have never been higher for our environ-

ment, our health, and especially our climate.


2018 STATE AVERAGES

VOTING SUMMARY

SENATE

house

STATE SENATE HOUSEAlabama 43 14

Alaska 11 6

Arizona 4 42

Arkansas 4 4

California 96 68

Colorado 54 40

Connecticut 100 93

Delaware 100 94

Florida 36 48

Georgia 7 26

Hawaii 100 70

Idaho 7 10

Illinois 93 60

Indiana 39 23

Iowa 4 27

Kansas 11 2

Kentucky 11 19

Louisiana 7 9

Maine 57 54

Maryland 100 77

Massachusetts 100 90

Michigan 100 42

Minnesota 100 40

Mississippi 5 22

Missouri 43 24

Montana 54 3

Nebraska 11 10

Nevada 54 74

New Hampshire 96 89

New Jersey 100 70

New Mexico 96 63

New York 100 72

North Carolina 11 24

North Dakota 29 3

Ohio 54 26

Oklahoma 11 4

Oregon 100 72

Pennsylvania 46 45

Rhode Island 100 97

South Carolina 7 20

South Dakota 11 3

Tennessee 7 23

Texas 11 28

Utah 7 6

Vermont 100 94

Virginia 100 36

Washington 100 61

West Virginia 25 7

Wisconsin 50 42

Wyoming 7 0


2018 HIGH AND LOW SCORES

HIGHEST DELEGATIONS

HIGHEST DELEGATIONS

LOWEST DELEGATIONS

SENATE SCORES OF 100

CALIFORNIA Harris

COLORADO Bennet

CONNECTICUT Blumenthal · Murphy

DELAWARE Carper · Coons

HAWAII Hirono · Schatz

ILLINOIS Durbin

MARYLAND Cardin · Van Hollen

MASSACHUSETTS Markey · Warren

MICHIGAN Peters · Stabenow

MINNESOTA Klobuchar · Smith

NEVADA Cortez Masto

NEW HAMPSHIRE Hassan

NEW JERSEY Booker · Menendez

NEW MEXICO Udall

NEW YORK Gillibrand · Schumer

OHIO Brown

OREGON Merkley · Wyden

RHODE ISLAND Reed · Whitehouse

VERMONT Leahy · Sanders

VIRGINIA Kaine · Warner

WASHINGTON Cantwell · Murray

WISCONSIN Baldwin

Connecticut 100%

Delaware 100%

Hawaii 100%

Maryland 100%

Massachusetts 100%

Michigan 100%

Minnesota 100%

New Jersey 100%

New York 100%

Oregon 100%

Rhode Island 100%

Vermont 100%

Virginia 100%

Washington 100%

Arizona 4%

Arkansas 4%

Iowa 4%

Mississippi 5%

Georgia 7%

Idaho 7%

Louisiana 7%

South Carolina 7%

Tennessee 7%

Utah 7%

Wyoming 7%

HOUSE SCORES OF 0

ALABAMA Byrne · Aderholt · Palmer

ARIZONA Lesko

ARKANSAS Westerman

CALIFORNIA Cook · Walters · Hunter

COLORADO Lamborn

FLORIDA Dunn · Yoho · DeSantis · Posey · Webster

GEORGIA Carter, E.L. · Handel · Hice · Loudermilk · Allen · Graves, T.

ILLINOIS LaHood

INDIANA Banks · Rokita · Messer

KANSAS Jenkins · Estes

KENTUCKY Comer · Guthrie · Barr

LOUISIANA Scalise · Higgins, C. · Abraham · Graves, G.

MICHIGAN Huizenga · Walberg

MINNESOTA Lewis, Jason · Emmer

MISSISSIPPI Kelly, T. · Palazzo

MISSOURI Wagner · Luetkemeyer · Hartzler · Graves, S.

NEW MEXICO Pearce

NORTH CAROLINA Walker · Hudson · Pittenger · Meadows

OHIO Wenstrup · Latta · Johnson, B. · Gibbs · Balderson

OKLAHOMA Hern

PENNSYLVANIA Meehan · Dent

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

TENNESSEE Kustoff

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

UTAH Curtis

VIRGINIA Goodlatte · Brat

WEST VIRGINIA Mooney

WISCONSIN Duffy · Gallagher

WYOMING Cheney

Wyoming 0%

Kansas 2%

Montana 3%

North Dakota 3%

South Dakota 3%

Arkansas 4%

Oklahoma 4%

Alaska 6%

Utah 6%

West Virginia 7%

Louisiana 9%

HOUSE SCORES OF 100

ARIZONA Gallego

CALIFORNIA Thompson · DeSaulnier · Pelosi · Lee, B. · Khanna · Roybal-Allard

FLORIDA Soto · Frankel · Wasserman Schultz

GEORGIA Johnson, H.

ILLINOIS Schakowsky

MASSACHUSETTS McGovern

MICHIGAN Jones

NEW YORK Meeks · Meng · Velázquez · Clarke, Y. · Nadler · Espaillat · Serrano · Engel · Morelle

PENNSYLVANIA Scanlon · Wild

RHODE ISLAND Cicilline

TEXAS Doggett

WASHINGTON Smith, Adam

WISCONSIN Pocan

Rhode Island 97%

Delaware 94%

Vermont 94%

Connecticut 93%

Massachusetts 90%

New Hampshire 89%

SENATE SCORES OF 0

ARIZONA Kyl

ARKANSAS Cotton

FLORIDA Rubio

IOWA Grassley

MISSISSIPPI Cochran

PENNSYLVANIA Toomey

WISCONSIN Johnson

LOWEST DELEGATIONS

SENATE house


SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIR SCORE RANKING MEMBER SCORE

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Roberts (KS) 7 Stabenow (MI) 100

Appropriations Shelby (AL) 7 Leahy (VT) 100

Commerce, Science and Transportation Thune (SD) 14 Nelson (FL) 71

Energy and Natural Resources Murkowski (AK) 14 Cantwell (WA) 100

Environment and Public Works Barrasso (WY) 7 Carper (DE) 100

SENATE COMMITTEE LEADER AVERAGE CHAIRS 10 RANKING MEMBERS 94

HOUSE COMMITTEE CHAIR SCORE RANKING MEMBER SCORE

Agriculture Conaway (TX-11) 3 Peterson (MN-07) 20

Appropriations Frelinghuysen (NJ-11) 17 Lowey (NY-17) 91

Energy and Commerce Walden (OR-02) 6 Pallone (NJ-06) 91

Natural Resources Bishop, Rob (UT-01) 3 Grijalva (AZ-03) 94

Science, Space, and Technology Smith, Lamar (TX-21) 3 Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX-30) 94

Transportation and Infrastructure Shuster (PA-09) 3 DeFazio (OR-04) 97

HOUSE COMMITTEE LEADER AVERAGE CHAIRS 6 RANKING MEMBERS 81

RATING THE LEADERSHIP OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEES

party leaders' scores

DEMOCRATS SCORE REPUBLICANS SCORE

Schumer (NY), Minority Leader 100 McConnell (KY), Majority Leader 14

Durbin (IL), Minority Whip 100 Cornyn (TX), Assistant Republican Leader 7

Murray (WA), Assistant Democratic Leader 100 Thune (SD), Conference Chair 14

Stabenow (MI), Chairwoman of Policy

and Communications Committee 100 Blunt (MO), Conference Vice Chair 7

LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 100 LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 11

DEMOCRATS SCORE REPUBLICANS SCORE

Ryan (WI-01), Speaker of the House* N/A

Pelosi (CA-12), Minority Leader 100 McCarthy, Kevin (CA-23), Majority Leader 3

Hoyer (MD-05), Minority Whip 63 Scalise, Steve (LA-01), Majority Whip 0

Clyburn (SC-06), Assistant Minority Leader 94

McMorris Rodgers (WA-05),

Conference Chairman 6

Crowley (NY-14), Caucus Chairman 86 Messer (IN-06), Policy Committee Chairman 0

LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 86 LEADERSHIP AVERAGE 2

*The Speaker of the House votes at his discretion.

SENATE

HOUSE


2018 SENATE VOTE DESCRIPTIONS

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

ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

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

ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

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

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

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

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

IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

2018NationalEnvironmentalScorecard·LCV|scorecard.lcv.org 11

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

THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

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

VOTE. The House passed the conference report on December 12 and the president signed the legislation into law on December 20.

SENATE VOTESKEYa= Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment actioni= Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

Bri

de

nst

ine

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(NA

SA

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Bo

rder

Wal

l Fun

din

g &

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Wh

ee

ler

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(EP

A D

ep

uty

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Exp

osi

ng

Wat

erw

ays

to In

vasi

ve S

pe

cie

s

Gra

nt

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ele

ven

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Po

mp

eo

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Se

cre

tary

of

Sta

te)

An

ti-E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l Re

scis

sio

n P

acka

ge

Old

ham

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Fif

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Ne

lso

n C

on

firm

atio

n (N

inth

Cir

cuit

Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

s)

Kav

anau

gh

Clo

ture

Vo

te (S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt)

Kav

anau

gh

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Su

pre

me

Co

urt

)C

lark

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ass

t. A

tt. G

en

era

l, D

OJ

En

viro

nm

en

t an

d N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Div

isio

n)

McN

ame

e C

on

firm

atio

n (F

ed

era

l En

erg

y R

eg

ula

tory

Co

mm

issi

on

)Fa

rm B

ill C

on

fere

nce

Re

po

rt

LCV SCORES

% % %2

018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me


ALABAMA

Jones D 79 N/A 79 % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % % ✖ % %

Shelby R 7 3 13 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

ALASKA

Murkowski R 14 6 17 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Sullivan R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

ARIZONA

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

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

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

ARKANSAS

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

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

CALIFORNIA

Feinstein D 93 97 90 % % % % % % % % % % % ? % %

Harris, K. D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

COLORADO

Bennet D 100 91 90 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Gardner R 7 3 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

CONNECTICUT

Blumenthal D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

DELAWARE

Carper D 100 97 83 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Coons D 100 94 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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


Bri

de

nst

ine

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(NA

SA

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Bo

rder

Wal

l Fun

din

g &

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Wh

ee

ler

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(EP

A D

ep

uty

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Exp

osi

ng

Wat

erw

ays

to In

vasi

ve S

pe

cie

s

Gra

nt

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ele

ven

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Po

mp

eo

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Se

cre

tary

of

Sta

te)

An

ti-E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l Re

scis

sio

n P

acka

ge

Old

ham

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Fif

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Ne

lso

n C

on

firm

atio

n (N

inth

Cir

cuit

Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

s)

Kav

anau

gh

Clo

ture

Vo

te (S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt)

Kav

anau

gh

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Su

pre

me

Co

urt

)C

lark

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ass

t. A

tt. G

en

era

l, D

OJ

En

viro

nm

en

t an

d N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Div

isio

n)

McN

ame

e C

on

firm

atio

n (F

ed

era

l En

erg

y R

eg

ula

tory

Co

mm

issi

on

)Fa

rm B

ill C

on

fere

nce

Re

po

rt

LCV SCORES

% % %2

018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me


FLORIDA

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

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

GEORGIA

Isakson R 7 3 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Perdue R 7 3 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

HAWAII

Hirono D 100 100 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Schatz D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

IDAHO

Crapo R 7 3 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Risch R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

ILLINOIS

Duckworth** D 86 94 89 % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % %

Durbin D 100 100 88 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

INDIANA

Donnelly D 71 67 60 ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % % % % %

Young, T. R 7 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

IOWA

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

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

KANSAS

Moran R 14 6 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Roberts R 7 3 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

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

missed two votes due to the birth of her daughter.


Bri

de

nst

ine

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(NA

SA

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Bo

rder

Wal

l Fun

din

g &

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Wh

ee

ler

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(EP

A D

ep

uty

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Exp

osi

ng

Wat

erw

ays

to In

vasi

ve S

pe

cie

s

Gra

nt

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ele

ven

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Po

mp

eo

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Se

cre

tary

of

Sta

te)

An

ti-E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l Re

scis

sio

n P

acka

ge

Old

ham

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Fif

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Ne

lso

n C

on

firm

atio

n (N

inth

Cir

cuit

Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

s)

Kav

anau

gh

Clo

ture

Vo

te (S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt)

Kav

anau

gh

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Su

pre

me

Co

urt

)C

lark

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ass

t. A

tt. G

en

era

l, D

OJ

En

viro

nm

en

t an

d N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Div

isio

n)

McN

ame

e C

on

firm

atio

n (F

ed

era

l En

erg

y R

eg

ula

tory

Co

mm

issi

on

)Fa

rm B

ill C

on

fere

nce

Re

po

rt

LCV SCORES

% % %2

018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me


KENTUCKY

McConnell R 14 6 7 ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Paul R 7 6 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

LOUISIANA

Cassidy R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

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

MAINE

Collins R 21 27 61 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

King, A. I 93 82 90 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % %

MARYLAND

Cardin D 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Van Hollen D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MASSACHUSETTS

Markey D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Warren D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MICHIGAN

Peters, G. D 100 100 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Stabenow D 100 97 89 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MINNESOTA

Klobuchar D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Smith D 100 N/A 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MISSISSIPPI

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

Hyde-Smith** R 8 N/A 8 i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Wicker R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

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


Bri

de

nst

ine

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(NA

SA

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Bo

rder

Wal

l Fun

din

g &

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Wh

ee

ler

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(EP

A D

ep

uty

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Exp

osi

ng

Wat

erw

ays

to In

vasi

ve S

pe

cie

s

Gra

nt

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ele

ven

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Po

mp

eo

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Se

cre

tary

of

Sta

te)

An

ti-E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l Re

scis

sio

n P

acka

ge

Old

ham

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Fif

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Ne

lso

n C

on

firm

atio

n (N

inth

Cir

cuit

Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

s)

Kav

anau

gh

Clo

ture

Vo

te (S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt)

Kav

anau

gh

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Su

pre

me

Co

urt

)C

lark

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ass

t. A

tt. G

en

era

l, D

OJ

En

viro

nm

en

t an

d N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Div

isio

n)

McN

ame

e C

on

firm

atio

n (F

ed

era

l En

erg

y R

eg

ula

tory

Co

mm

issi

on

)Fa

rm B

ill C

on

fere

nce

Re

po

rt

LCV SCORES

% % %2

018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me


MISSOURI

Blunt R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

McCaskill D 79 79 75 % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ % % %

MONTANA

Daines R 14 6 4 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Tester D 93 88 86 % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % %

NEBRASKA

Fischer R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Sasse R 14 6 3 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

NEVADA

Cortez Masto D 100 94 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Heller R 7 3 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hassan D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Shaheen D 93 97 96 % % % % % ? % % % % % % % %

NEW JERSEY

Booker D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Menendez D 100 94 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW MEXICO

Heinrich D 93 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % ? % %

Udall D 100 94 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW YORK

Gillibrand D 100 100 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Schumer D 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NORTH CAROLINA

Burr R 14 6 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Tillis R 7 3 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? %


Bri

de

nst

ine

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(NA

SA

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Bo

rder

Wal

l Fun

din

g &

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Wh

ee

ler

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(EP

A D

ep

uty

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Exp

osi

ng

Wat

erw

ays

to In

vasi

ve S

pe

cie

s

Gra

nt

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ele

ven

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Po

mp

eo

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Se

cre

tary

of

Sta

te)

An

ti-E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l Re

scis

sio

n P

acka

ge

Old

ham

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Fif

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Ne

lso

n C

on

firm

atio

n (N

inth

Cir

cuit

Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

s)

Kav

anau

gh

Clo

ture

Vo

te (S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt)

Kav

anau

gh

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Su

pre

me

Co

urt

)C

lark

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ass

t. A

tt. G

en

era

l, D

OJ

En

viro

nm

en

t an

d N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Div

isio

n)

McN

ame

e C

on

firm

atio

n (F

ed

era

l En

erg

y R

eg

ula

tory

Co

mm

issi

on

)Fa

rm B

ill C

on

fere

nce

Re

po

rt

LCV SCORES

% % %2

018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me


NORTH DAKOTA

Heitkamp D 50 55 52 ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ % % ? ? % %

Hoeven R 7 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

OHIO

Brown, S. D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Portman R 7 3 19 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

OKLAHOMA

Inhofe R 14 6 5 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Lankford R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

OREGON

Merkley D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Wyden D 100 97 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

PENNSYLVANIA

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

Toomey R 0 0 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

RHODE ISLAND

Reed, J. D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Whitehouse D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

SOUTH CAROLINA

Graham, L. R 7 6 12 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Scott, T. R 7 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

SOUTH DAKOTA

Rounds R 7 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Thune R 14 6 10 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

TENNESSEE

Alexander R 7 6 20 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Corker R 7 6 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %


Bri

de

nst

ine

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(NA

SA

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Bo

rder

Wal

l Fun

din

g &

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Wh

ee

ler

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(EP

A D

ep

uty

A

dm

inis

trat

or)

Exp

osi

ng

Wat

erw

ays

to In

vasi

ve S

pe

cie

s

Gra

nt

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ele

ven

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Po

mp

eo

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Se

cre

tary

of

Sta

te)

An

ti-E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l Re

scis

sio

n P

acka

ge

Old

ham

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Fif

th C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

of

Ap

pe

als)

Ne

lso

n C

on

firm

atio

n (N

inth

Cir

cuit

Co

urt

o

f A

pp

eal

s)

Kav

anau

gh

Clo

ture

Vo

te (S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt)

Kav

anau

gh

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Su

pre

me

Co

urt

)C

lark

Co

nfir

mat

ion

(Ass

t. A

tt. G

en

era

l, D

OJ

En

viro

nm

en

t an

d N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Div

isio

n)

McN

ame

e C

on

firm

atio

n (F

ed

era

l En

erg

y R

eg

ula

tory

Co

mm

issi

on

)Fa

rm B

ill C

on

fere

nce

Re

po

rt

LCV SCORES

% % %2

018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me


TEXAS

Cornyn R 7 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Cruz R 14 6 4 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

UTAH

Hatch R 7 3 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Lee, M. R 7 3 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

VERMONT

Leahy D 100 100 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Sanders I 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

VIRGINIA

Kaine D 100 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Warner D 100 88 87 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

WASHINGTON

Cantwell D 100 100 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Murray D 100 100 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

WEST VIRGINIA

Capito R 7 3 17 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

Manchin D 43 45 45 ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % %

WISCONSIN

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

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

WYOMING

Barrasso R 7 3 8 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Enzi R 7 3 5 % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖


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

ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate took no action on this legislation.

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

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

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

2018 HOUSE VOTE DESCRIPTIONS


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


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

7. ATTACK ON ALASKA’S NATIONAL FORESTSRepresentative Don Young (R-AK) offered an amendment to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutri-tion Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, which would exempt federal forests in Alaska—in-cluding the Tongass National Forest, the largest remaining temperate rainforest in the world—from one of the country’s most important land, wildlife, and water conservation safeguards, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule protects habitat for wildlife, safeguards clean water for communities, and prevents harmful development in designated areas of our na-tional forests. Eliminating this protection would open up nearly 10 million acres of the Tongass’ wild temperate rainforest to destructive logging and road building activities. On May 17, the House approved the Young amendment by a vote of 208-207 (House roll call vote 199). NO IS THE

PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 2, including the Young amendment, on June 21. The H.R. 2 conference report did not include this harmful language. The president signed the H.R. 2 conference report into law on December 20.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The H.R. 2 conference report rejected the anti-environmental provisions contained in the House bill. The president signed the H.R. 2 conference report into law on December 20.

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


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

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

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

VOTE.


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

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

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


23. BLOCKING PROTECTIONS FOR PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSERepresentative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would block federal funding for the threatened Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse under the Endangered Spe-cies Act (ESA). By blocking funding, this amendment attacks recovery efforts for this western species, which has suffered habitat loss and fragmentation throughout its range. Funded recovery programs require a Habitat Conservation Plan, which is a crucial aspect of species recovery un-der the ESA. Overall, this amendment is an attack on the ESA that sets a dangerous precedent of inserting political considerations in what should be a science-based process. On July 18, the House approved the Lamborn amendment by a vote of 213-201 (House roll call vote 350). NO IS

THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

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

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


26. BLOCKING PROTECTIONS FOR THE LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKENRepresentative Steve Pearce (R-NM) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the lesser prairie chicken for protections under the Endan-gered Species Act (ESA). Blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the lesser prairie chicken would interfere with the science-based process used to determine the need of a species’ protection. Overall, this amendment is an attack on the ESA that sets a dangerous precedent of blocking the potential listing of a species that wildlife experts may deem necessary. On July 18, the House approved the Pearce amendment by a vote of 216-199 (House roll call vote 354). NO IS

THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its version of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

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

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


29. UNDERMINING ACCESS TO THE COURTS Representative Jason Smith (R-MO) offered an amendment to H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, which limits the recovery of attorneys’ fees in citizen suits under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, the amendment prohibits the recovery of legal fees for settlements in cases against the federal government. This change would remove critical incentives for citizen suit provisions and especially harm low-income communities that seek legal representation to enforce these environmental laws. The proposed changes also disincentivize the quick resolution of citizen suits, increasing litigation costs for both plaintiffs and the government. On July 18, the House approved the Smith amendment by a vote of 215-199 (House roll call vote 357). NO IS THE

PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 6147 on July 19 and the Senate passed its ver-sion of the bill on August 1. On September 5, the House rejected a motion to instruct conferees and no further action was taken on this legislation.

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

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


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

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


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

The Senate took no action on this legislation.

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


HOUSE VOTESKEY%= Pro-environment action✖ = Anti-environment actioni= Ineligible to vote? = Absence (counts as negative)

2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

ALABAMA

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

2 Roby R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Rogers, M. R 3 1 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

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

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

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

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

ALASKA

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

ARIZONA

1 O’Halleran D 83 87 87 % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % %

2 McSally R 9 10 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Grijalva D 94 97 96 % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Gosar R 6 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Biggs R 11 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Schweikert R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Gallego D 100 96 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

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

ARKANSAS

1 Crawford R 6 3 5 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Hill R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Womack R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

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

* Representative Sewell entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 153, 243, 246, 250, 257 and 328, which all would have been scored as pro-environment.

** Representative Lesko was sworn in on May 7, 2018.† Representative Sinema entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 346, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

ALABAMA

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

2 Roby R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Rogers, M. R 3 1 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

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

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

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

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

ALASKA

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

ARIZONA

1 O’Halleran D 83 87 87 % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % %

2 McSally R 9 10 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Grijalva D 94 97 96 % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Gosar R 6 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Biggs R 11 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Schweikert R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Gallego D 100 96 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

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

ARKANSAS

1 Crawford R 6 3 5 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Hill R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Womack R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

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



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

CALIFORNIA

1 LaMalfa R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Huffman* D 91 96 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

3 Garamendi D 91 93 90 % ? % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 McClintock R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Thompson, M. D 100 97 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Matsui D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Bera D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

9 McNerney D 91 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

10 Denham R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

11 DeSaulnier D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

12 Pelosi D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Lee, B. D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Speier** D N/A N/A 91 % % % ? ? % % ? % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % %

15 Swalwell† D 89 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ?

16 Costa D 69 50 49 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

17 Khanna D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 Eshoo‡ D 94 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

19 Lofgren D 97 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

20 Panetta D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Valadao R 11 9 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

22 Nunes R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

23 McCarthy R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Huffman entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 257, which would have been scored as pro-environment, and missed roll call votes 390 and 392 due to a family matter.

** Representative Speier entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 203, which would have been scored as pro-environment. She missed a number of votes due to recovery from a medical procedure.

† Representative Swalwell entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 420, which would have been scored as pro-environment.‡ Representative Eshoo entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 390 and 392, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

CALIFORNIA

1 LaMalfa R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Huffman* D 91 96 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

3 Garamendi D 91 93 90 % ? % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 McClintock R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Thompson, M. D 100 97 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Matsui D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Bera D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

9 McNerney D 91 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

10 Denham R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

11 DeSaulnier D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

12 Pelosi D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Lee, B. D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Speier** D N/A N/A 91 % % % ? ? % % ? % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % %

15 Swalwell† D 89 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ?

16 Costa D 69 50 49 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

17 Khanna D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 Eshoo‡ D 94 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

19 Lofgren D 97 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

20 Panetta D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Valadao R 11 9 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

22 Nunes R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

23 McCarthy R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

24 Carbajal* D 83 91 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ? ? ? ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

25 Knight R 11 10 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

26 Brownley** D 89 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

27 Chu D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

28 Schiff D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

29 Cárdenas D 49 73 84 ? ? ? ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % %

30 Sherman D 97 99 97 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

31 Aguilar† D 91 96 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

32 Napolitano‡ D 94 86 90 % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

33 Lieu D 89 90 90 ? ? % % ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

34 Gomez D 97 96 96 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

35 Torres D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

36 Ruiz D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

37 Bass D 66 81 87 % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % % % %

38 Sánchez D 97 99 93 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

39 Royce R 9 9 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖

40 Roybal-Allard D 100 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

41 Takano D 97 99 99 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

42 Calvert R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

43 Waters, Maxine D 94 94 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % %

44 Barragán D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

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

* Representative Carbajal entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 243, 246, and 250, which would have been scored as pro-environment.

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


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

24 Carbajal* D 83 91 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ? ? ? ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

25 Knight R 11 10 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

26 Brownley** D 89 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

27 Chu D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

28 Schiff D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

29 Cárdenas D 49 73 84 ? ? ? ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % %

30 Sherman D 97 99 97 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

31 Aguilar† D 91 96 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

32 Napolitano‡ D 94 86 90 % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

33 Lieu D 89 90 90 ? ? % % ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

34 Gomez D 97 96 96 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

35 Torres D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

36 Ruiz D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

37 Bass D 66 81 87 % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % % % %

38 Sánchez D 97 99 93 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

39 Royce R 9 9 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖

40 Roybal-Allard D 100 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

41 Takano D 97 99 99 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

42 Calvert R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

43 Waters, Maxine D 94 94 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % %

44 Barragán D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

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



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

47 Lowenthal* D 94 96 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

48 Rohrabacher R 11 10 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

49 Issa R 3 6 4 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ?

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

51 Vargas D 91 96 96 % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

52 Peters, S.** D 86 91 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

53 Davis, S. D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

COLORADO

1 DeGette D 91 90 96 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Polis† D 66 83 89 ? ? % % % ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ? ?

3 Tipton R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Buck R 6 6 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ %

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

6 Coffman R 20 13 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ? ✖ ✖

7 Perlmutter‡ D 89 94 86 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

CONNECTICUT

1 Larson, J. D 94 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Courtney D 91 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 DeLauro§ D 91 84 94 % ? % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Himes D 91 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

5 Esty D 94 97 98 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

DELAWARE

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

* Representative Lowenthal entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 472, which would have been scored as pro-environ-ment.

** Representative Peters entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 346, which would have been scored as pro-environment.† Representative Polis entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 99, 101, 243 and 257, which would have been scored as

pro-environment.‡ Representative Perlmutter entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 321, 325 and 328, which would have been scored as

pro-environment.§ Representative DeLauro entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 101, 178 and 179, which would have been scored as

pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

47 Lowenthal* D 94 96 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

48 Rohrabacher R 11 10 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

49 Issa R 3 6 4 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ?

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

51 Vargas D 91 96 96 % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

52 Peters, S.** D 86 91 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

53 Davis, S. D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

COLORADO

1 DeGette D 91 90 96 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Polis† D 66 83 89 ? ? % % % ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ? ?

3 Tipton R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Buck R 6 6 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ %

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

6 Coffman R 20 13 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ? ✖ ✖

7 Perlmutter‡ D 89 94 86 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

CONNECTICUT

1 Larson, J. D 94 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Courtney D 91 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 DeLauro§ D 91 84 94 % ? % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Himes D 91 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

5 Esty D 94 97 98 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

DELAWARE

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



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

FLORIDA

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

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

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

4 Rutherford R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Lawson* D 89 79 79 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % %

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

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

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

9 Soto D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Demings D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

12 Bilirakis R 6 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Crist D 94 89 89 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Castor D 91 89 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

15 Ross R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

16 Buchanan R 40 24 22 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖

17 Rooney, T. R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖

18 Mast R 29 26 26 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

19 Rooney, F. R 20 10 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ? ✖

20 Hastings D 94 94 84 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ?

21 Frankel D 100 97 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

22 Deutch D 94 91 91 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

23 Wasserman Schultz D 100 93 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

24 Wilson, F. D 97 91 91 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

25 Diaz-Balart R 17 11 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

26 Curbelo R 57 40 39 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % ✖ % %* Representative Lawson entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 363, which would have been scored as pro-environment.** Representative DeSantis resigned on September 10, 2018.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

FLORIDA

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

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

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

4 Rutherford R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Lawson* D 89 79 79 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % %

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

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

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

9 Soto D 100 100 100 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Demings D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

12 Bilirakis R 6 3 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Crist D 94 89 89 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Castor D 91 89 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

15 Ross R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

16 Buchanan R 40 24 22 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖

17 Rooney, T. R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖

18 Mast R 29 26 26 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

19 Rooney, F. R 20 10 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ? ✖

20 Hastings D 94 94 84 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ?

21 Frankel D 100 97 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

22 Deutch D 94 91 91 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

23 Wasserman Schultz D 100 93 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

24 Wilson, F. D 97 91 91 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

25 Diaz-Balart R 17 11 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

26 Curbelo R 57 40 39 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % ✖ % %



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

27 Ros-Lehtinen R 57 40 34 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ ? ? ? %

GEORGIA

1 Carter, E.L. R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Bishop, S. D 63 66 51 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ %

3 Ferguson R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Johnson, H. D 100 99 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Lewis, John D 97 99 93 % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Handel R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Woodall R 3 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Scott, A. R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Collins, D. R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

10 Hice R 0 0 0 ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Loudermilk R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Allen R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Scott, D. D 86 87 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

14 Graves, T. R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

HAWAII

1 Hanabusa D 46 71 83 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % ?

2 Gabbard* D 94 93 96 % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

IDAHO

1 Labrador R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ✖

2 Simpson R 14 11 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

ILLINOIS

1 Rush D 91 80 79 % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

2 Kelly, R. D 97 99 94 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Lipinski D 91 96 90 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

4 Gutiérrez D 91 94 91 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % ? %* Representative Gabbard entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 420, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

27 Ros-Lehtinen R 57 40 34 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ ? ? ? %

GEORGIA

1 Carter, E.L. R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Bishop, S. D 63 66 51 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ %

3 Ferguson R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Johnson, H. D 100 99 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Lewis, John D 97 99 93 % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Handel R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Woodall R 3 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Scott, A. R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Collins, D. R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

10 Hice R 0 0 0 ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Loudermilk R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Allen R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Scott, D. D 86 87 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

14 Graves, T. R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

HAWAII

1 Hanabusa D 46 71 83 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % ?

2 Gabbard* D 94 93 96 % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

IDAHO

1 Labrador R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ✖

2 Simpson R 14 11 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

ILLINOIS

1 Rush D 91 80 79 % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

2 Kelly, R. D 97 99 94 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Lipinski D 91 96 90 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

4 Gutiérrez D 91 94 91 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % ? %



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

5 Quigley D 97 97 98 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Roskam R 20 11 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

7 Davis, D. D 97 96 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

8 Krishnamoorthi D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

9 Schakowsky D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Schneider D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

11 Foster D 94 97 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

12 Bost R 3 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Davis, R. R 6 7 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

14 Hultgren R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

15 Shimkus R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

16 Kinzinger R 3 4 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

17 Bustos D 91 93 88 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 LaHood R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

INDIANA

1 Visclosky D 94 97 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Walorski R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Banks R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Rokita R 0 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Brooks, S. R 6 7 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Messer R 0 1 1 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Carson D 94 93 93 % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Bucshon R 3 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Hollingsworth R 11 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

IOWA 0

1 Blum R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Loebsack D 94 94 90 % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % %


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

5 Quigley D 97 97 98 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Roskam R 20 11 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

7 Davis, D. D 97 96 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

8 Krishnamoorthi D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

9 Schakowsky D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Schneider D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

11 Foster D 94 97 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

12 Bost R 3 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Davis, R. R 6 7 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

14 Hultgren R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

15 Shimkus R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

16 Kinzinger R 3 4 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

17 Bustos D 91 93 88 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 LaHood R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

INDIANA

1 Visclosky D 94 97 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Walorski R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Banks R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Rokita R 0 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Brooks, S. R 6 7 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Messer R 0 1 1 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Carson D 94 93 93 % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Bucshon R 3 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Hollingsworth R 11 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

IOWA 0

1 Blum R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Loebsack D 94 94 90 % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % %



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

3 Young, David R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 King, S. R 9 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

KANSAS

1 Marshall R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Jenkins, L. R 0 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

3 Yoder R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Estes R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

KENTUCKY

1 Comer R 0 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Guthrie R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Yarmuth D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

4 Massie R 17 17 12 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Rogers, H. R 6 6 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Barr R 0 0 1 ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

LOUISIANA

1 Scalise R 0 N/A 3 ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Richmond D 46 66 74 % ? % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ✖ % ?

3 Higgins, C. R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Johnson, M. R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Abraham R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Graves, G. R 0 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

MAINE

1 Pingree D 94 97 96 ? % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Poliquin R 14 17 16 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

MARYLAND

1 Harris, A. R 3 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Ruppersberger D 94 97 88 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

3 Young, David R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 King, S. R 9 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

KANSAS

1 Marshall R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Jenkins, L. R 0 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

3 Yoder R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Estes R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

KENTUCKY

1 Comer R 0 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Guthrie R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Yarmuth D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

4 Massie R 17 17 12 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Rogers, H. R 6 6 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Barr R 0 0 1 ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

LOUISIANA

1 Scalise R 0 N/A 3 ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Richmond D 46 66 74 % ? % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ✖ % ?

3 Higgins, C. R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Johnson, M. R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Abraham R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Graves, G. R 0 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

MAINE

1 Pingree D 94 97 96 ? % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Poliquin R 14 17 16 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

MARYLAND

1 Harris, A. R 3 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Ruppersberger D 94 97 88 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %


HOUSE VOTESKEY%= Pro-environment action ✖ = Anti-environment actioni= Ineligible to vote ? = Absence (counts as negative)

2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

3 Sarbanes D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Brown, A.* D 83 91 91 % % % % ✖ ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

5 Hoyer** D 63 80 81 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % % % %

6 Delaney D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Cummings D 89 76 92 ? ? % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Raskin D 97 99 99 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MASSACHUSETTS

1 Neal D 89 94 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

2 McGovern D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Tsongas D 86 89 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ? % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

4 Kennedy, Joseph P. D 91 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Clark, K. D 94 91 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Moulton† D 89 94 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Capuano D 86 93 96 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ?

8 Lynch D 86 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

9 Keating D 89 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

MICHIGAN

1 Bergman R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Huizenga R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Amash R 37 30 18 ✖ % % ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % %

4 Moolenaar R 6 6 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Kildee D 94 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Upton R 40 27 26 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? %

7 Walberg R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Bishop, M. R 3 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖

9 Levin D 94 97 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Mitchell R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖* Representative Brown entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 198, 199 and 203, which would have been scored as pro-environment.** Representative Hoyer missed roll call votes 328, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357 due to recovery from an illness.† Representative Moulton entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 325, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

3 Sarbanes D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Brown, A.* D 83 91 91 % % % % ✖ ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

5 Hoyer D 63 80 81 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % % % %

6 Delaney D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Cummings D 89 76 92 ? ? % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Raskin D 97 99 99 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MASSACHUSETTS

1 Neal D 89 94 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

2 McGovern D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Tsongas D 86 89 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ? % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

4 Kennedy, Joseph P. D 91 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Clark, K. D 94 91 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Moulton** D 89 94 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Capuano D 86 93 96 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ?

8 Lynch D 86 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

9 Keating D 89 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

MICHIGAN

1 Bergman R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Huizenga R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Amash R 37 30 18 ✖ % % ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % %

4 Moolenaar R 6 6 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Kildee D 94 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Upton R 40 27 26 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? %

7 Walberg R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Bishop, M. R 3 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖

9 Levin D 94 97 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Mitchell R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

11 Trott R 9 6 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ?

12 Dingell D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Jones* D 100 N/A 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i %

14 Lawrence D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MINNESOTA

1 Walz** D 14 56 75 % ? % ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

2 Lewis, Jason R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Paulsen R 34 24 18 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ? % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

4 McCollum D 97 99 94 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Ellison D 74 87 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ?

6 Emmer R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Peterson D 20 17 31 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ %

8 Nolan D 77 83 83 ? ? % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % ✖ ? %

MISSISSIPPI

1 Kelly, T. R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Thompson, B. D 86 90 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % ?

3 Harper R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Palazzo† R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖

MISSOURI

1 Clay D 86 90 89 % % % ✖ ✖ ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Wagner R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Luetkemeyer R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Hartzler R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Cleaver D 97 93 88 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Graves, S. R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Long R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Smith, J. R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖* Representative Jones was sworn in on November 29, 2018.** Representative Walz entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 101, which would have been scored as pro-environment.† Representative Palazzo entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 392, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

11 Trott R 9 6 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ?

12 Dingell D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Jones* D 100 N/A 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i %

14 Lawrence D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

MINNESOTA

1 Walz** D 14 56 75 % ? % ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

2 Lewis, Jason R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Paulsen R 34 24 18 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ? % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

4 McCollum D 97 99 94 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Ellison D 74 87 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ?

6 Emmer R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Peterson D 20 17 31 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ %

8 Nolan D 77 83 83 ? ? % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % ✖ ? %

MISSISSIPPI

1 Kelly, T. R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Thompson, B. D 86 90 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % ?

3 Harper R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Palazzo† R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖

MISSOURI

1 Clay D 86 90 89 % % % ✖ ✖ ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Wagner R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Luetkemeyer R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Hartzler R 0 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Cleaver D 97 93 88 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Graves, S. R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Long R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Smith, J. R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

MONTANA

AL Gianforte R 3 6 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖

NEBRASKA

1 Fortenberry R 20 19 18 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Bacon R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Smith, Adrian R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

NEVADA

1 Titus* D 89 94 95 % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

2 Amodei R 14 10 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Rosen D 94 96 96 % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

4 Kihuen D 97 97 97 % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW HAMPSHIRE

1 Shea-Porter** D 89 94 95 ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

2 Kuster† D 89 91 94 % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW JERSEY

1 Norcross D 86 89 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

2 LoBiondo R 51 49 56 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ✖

3 MacArthur R 23 23 16 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Smith, C. R 60 54 61 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖

5 Gottheimer D 80 81 81 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ? %

6 Pallone D 91 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Lance R 60 47 27 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖

8 Sires D 89 93 91 % % ? ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

9 Pascrell‡ D 91 94 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

10 Payne§ D 91 94 91 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

* Representative Titus entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 390 and 392, which would have been scored as pro-environment.** Representative Shea-Porter entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 472, which would have been scored as pro-environment.† Representative Kuster entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 153, which would have been scored as pro-environment.‡ Representative Pascrell entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 420, which would have been scored as pro-environment.§ Representative Payne entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 282 and 284, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

MONTANA

AL Gianforte R 3 6 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖

NEBRASKA

1 Fortenberry R 20 19 18 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Bacon R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Smith, Adrian R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

NEVADA

1 Titus* D 89 94 95 % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

2 Amodei R 14 10 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Rosen D 94 96 96 % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

4 Kihuen D 97 97 97 % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW HAMPSHIRE

1 Shea-Porter** D 89 94 95 ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ?

2 Kuster† D 89 91 94 % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW JERSEY

1 Norcross D 86 89 92 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ? % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

2 LoBiondo R 51 49 56 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ✖

3 MacArthur R 23 23 16 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Smith, C. R 60 54 61 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖

5 Gottheimer D 80 81 81 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ? %

6 Pallone D 91 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Lance R 60 47 27 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖

8 Sires D 89 93 91 % % ? ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

9 Pascrell‡ D 91 94 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

10 Payne§ D 91 94 91 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

11 Frelinghuysen R 17 13 30 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Watson Coleman D 94 91 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW MEXICO

1 Lujan Grisham, M. D 91 96 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % ✖ % ?

2 Pearce R 0 1 4 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Luján, B.R. D 97 99 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

NEW YORK

1 Zeldin R 9 9 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 King, P. R 29 20 17 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Suozzi D 97 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Rice, K.* D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Meeks D 100 94 89 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Meng D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Velázquez D 100 100 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Jeffries** D 91 94 95 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

9 Clarke, Y. D 100 99 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Nadler D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

11 Donovan R 26 21 19 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖

12 Maloney, C. D 97 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Espaillat D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Crowley† D 86 93 94 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % ? ?

15 Serrano D 100 99 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

16 Engel D 100 99 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

17 Lowey D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 Maloney, S.P. D 89 91 88 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

19 Faso R 37 36 36 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖* Representative Rice entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 346, which would have been scored as pro-environment.** Representative Jeffries entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 282 and 284, which would have been scored as

pro-environment.† Representative Crowley entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 178, 179 and 363, which would have been scored as

pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

11 Frelinghuysen R 17 13 30 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Watson Coleman D 94 91 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

NEW MEXICO

1 Lujan Grisham, M. D 91 96 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % ✖ % ?

2 Pearce R 0 1 4 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Luján, B.R. D 97 99 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

NEW YORK

1 Zeldin R 9 9 10 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 King, P. R 29 20 17 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Suozzi D 97 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Rice, K.* D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Meeks D 100 94 89 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Meng D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Velázquez D 100 100 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

8 Jeffries** D 91 94 95 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

9 Clarke, Y. D 100 99 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Nadler D 100 100 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

11 Donovan R 26 21 19 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖

12 Maloney, C. D 97 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Espaillat D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Crowley† D 86 93 94 % % % ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % ? ?

15 Serrano D 100 99 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

16 Engel D 100 99 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

17 Lowey D 91 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 Maloney, S.P. D 89 91 88 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

19 Faso R 37 36 36 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

20 Tonko D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Stefanik R 51 47 33 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

22 Tenney R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

23 Reed, T. R 17 14 8 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

24 Katko R 43 34 27 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ✖

25 Morelle* D 100 N/A 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i % %

25 Slaughter* D N/A N/A 91 ? ? i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

26 Higgins, B. D 91 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

27 Collins, C. R 9 6 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

NORTH CAROLINA

1 Butterfield D 91 91 89 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % %

2 Holding R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Jones R 14 23 22 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ % ? ?

4 Price D 94 97 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Foxx R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Walker R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Rouzer R 3 3 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Hudson R 0 0 1 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Pittenger R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

10 McHenry R 9 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Meadows R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Adams D 94 97 98 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Budd R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

NORTH DAKOTA

AL Cramer R 3 1 1 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Morelle was sworn in on November 13, 2018 following the death of Representative Slaughter on March 16, 2018.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

20 Tonko D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Stefanik R 51 47 33 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

22 Tenney R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

23 Reed, T. R 17 14 8 ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

24 Katko R 43 34 27 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ✖

25 Morelle* D 100 N/A 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i % %

25 Slaughter* D N/A N/A 91 ? ? i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

26 Higgins, B. D 91 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

27 Collins, C. R 9 6 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

NORTH CAROLINA

1 Butterfield D 91 91 89 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % %

2 Holding R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Jones R 14 23 22 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ % ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ % ? ?

4 Price D 94 97 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Foxx R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Walker R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Rouzer R 3 3 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Hudson R 0 0 1 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Pittenger R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

10 McHenry R 9 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Meadows R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Adams D 94 97 98 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Budd R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

NORTH DAKOTA

AL Cramer R 3 1 1 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

OHIO

1 Chabot R 3 1 12 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Wenstrup R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Beatty* D 83 91 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Jordan R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Latta R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Johnson, B. R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Gibbs R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Davidson R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Kaptur D 94 96 83 % % % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Turner R 14 10 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Fudge D 89 94 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % %

12 Balderson** R 0 N/A 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Ryan, T. D 94 94 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

14 Joyce R 14 13 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

15 Stivers R 11 7 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

16 Renacci R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

OKLAHOMA

1 Bridenstine† R N/A N/A 3 ? ? i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

1 Hern‡ R 0 N/A 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖

2 Mullin R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Lucas R 6 6 5 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Cole R 9 9 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Russell R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Beatty entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call votes 243, 246, 250 and 257, which would have been scored as pro-environment.

** Representative Balderson was sworn into office on September 5, 2018.† Representative Bridenstine resigned on April 23, 2018 to serve as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ‡ Representative Hern was sworn in on November 13, 2018.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

OHIO

1 Chabot R 3 1 12 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Wenstrup R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Beatty* D 83 91 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ? ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 Jordan R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Latta R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Johnson, B. R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Gibbs R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Davidson R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Kaptur D 94 96 83 % % % % ✖ % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Turner R 14 10 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Fudge D 89 94 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % % % %

12 Balderson** R 0 N/A 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Ryan, T. D 94 94 92 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

14 Joyce R 14 13 8 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

15 Stivers R 11 7 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

16 Renacci R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

OKLAHOMA

1 Bridenstine† R N/A N/A 3 ? ? i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

1 Hern‡ R 0 N/A 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖

2 Mullin R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Lucas R 6 6 5 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Cole R 9 9 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Russell R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

OREGON

1 Bonamici D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Walden R 6 7 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Blumenauer D 97 99 96 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 DeFazio D 97 99 92 ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Schrader D 63 68 70 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ? % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

PENNSYLVANIA

1 Brady, R. D 86 89 86 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % ✖ % %

2 Evans D 94 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Kelly, M. R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Perry* R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Thompson, G. R 3 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Costello R 43 40 34 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ % ✖ % % % ? ✖ % ✖ % ✖

7 Meehan** R 0 N/A 16 ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Scanlon† D 100 N/A 100 % %

8 Fitzpatrick R 83 77 77 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % ✖

9 Shuster R 3 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

10 Marino R 6 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Barletta R 6 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Rothfus R 6 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Boyle‡ D 91 93 97 % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Doyle D 91 94 78 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

15 Dent§ R 0 3 17 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

15 Wild# D 100 N/A 100 %

16 Smucker R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Perry entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call vote 284, which would have been scored as pro-environment.** Representative Meehan resigned on April 27, 2018.† Representative Scanlon was sworn in on November 13, 2018.‡ Representative Boyle entered statements into the Congressional Record noting how he would have voted on roll call votes 198, 199 and 203, which would have been scored as

pro-environment.§ Representative Dent resigned on May 12, 2018.# Representative Wild was sworn in on November 15, 2018.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

OREGON

1 Bonamici D 97 99 98 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Walden R 6 7 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Blumenauer D 97 99 96 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 DeFazio D 97 99 92 ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Schrader D 63 68 70 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ? % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

PENNSYLVANIA

1 Brady, R.* D 86 89 86 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % ✖ % %

2 Evans D 94 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Kelly, M. R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Perry R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Thompson, G. R 3 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Costello R 43 40 34 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % ✖ % ✖ % % % ? ✖ % ✖ % ✖

7 Meehan* R 0 N/A 16 ✖ ✖ ✖ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

7 Scanlon† D 100 N/A 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i % %

8 Fitzpatrick R 83 77 77 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % ✖

9 Shuster R 3 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

10 Marino R 6 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Barletta R 6 4 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Rothfus R 6 4 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Boyle‡ D 91 93 97 % % % % % ? ? ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Doyle D 91 94 78 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

15 Dent§ R 0 3 17 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

15 Wild# D 100 N/A 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i %

16 Smucker R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

17 Cartwright D 91 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

18 Lamb* D 82 N/A 82 % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % %

RHODE ISLAND

1 Cicilline D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Langevin D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

SOUTH CAROLINA

1 Sanford R 40 37 28 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖

2 Wilson, J. R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Duncan, Jeff R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

4 Gowdy R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

5 Norman R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Clyburn D 94 89 85 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Rice, T. R 0 1 1 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

SOUTH DAKOTA

AL Noem R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ?

TENNESSEE

1 Roe R 3 3 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Duncan, John R 9 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Fleischmann R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 DesJarlais R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Cooper D 86 93 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

6 Black, D. R 3 1 3 ✖ ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ? ?

7 Blackburn R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖

8 Kustoff R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Cohen D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

TEXAS

1 Gohmert R 3 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Lamb was sworn in on April 12, 2018.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

17 Cartwright D 91 94 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

18 Lamb D 82 N/A 82 i i % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % %

RHODE ISLAND

1 Cicilline D 100 100 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Langevin D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

SOUTH CAROLINA

1 Sanford R 40 37 28 ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖

2 Wilson, J. R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Duncan, Jeff R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

4 Gowdy R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

5 Norman R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Clyburn D 94 89 85 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Rice, T. R 0 1 1 ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

SOUTH DAKOTA

AL Noem R 3 1 4 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ?

TENNESSEE

1 Roe R 3 3 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Duncan, John R 9 9 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Fleischmann R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 DesJarlais R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Cooper D 86 93 82 % % % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

6 Black, D. R 3 1 3 ✖ ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ? ?

7 Blackburn R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖

8 Kustoff R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Cohen D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

TEXAS

1 Gohmert R 3 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

2 Poe R 0 0 3 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Johnson, S. R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Ratcliffe R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

5 Hensarling R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

6 Barton R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

7 Culberson R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

8 Brady, K. R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

9 Green, A. D 97 99 85 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

10 McCaul R 3 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Conaway R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Granger R 6 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Thornberry R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

14 Weber R 6 3 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

15 Gonzalez D 74 73 73 % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ %

16 O’Rourke D 94 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

17 Flores R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖

18 Jackson Lee D 97 96 81 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

19 Arrington R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

20 Castro D 97 99 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

21 Smith, L. R 3 1 6 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

22 Olson R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

23 Hurd R 20 11 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

24 Marchant R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

25 Williams R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

26 Burgess R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

27 Cloud* R 0 N/A 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

27 Farenthold** R 0 N/A 3 ✖ ✖ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

* Representative Cloud was sworn in on July 10, 2018.** Representative Farenthold resigned on April 6, 2018.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

2 Poe R 0 0 3 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

3 Johnson, S. R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Ratcliffe R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

5 Hensarling R 0 0 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

6 Barton R 6 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

7 Culberson R 6 4 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

8 Brady, K. R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

9 Green, A. D 97 99 85 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

10 McCaul R 3 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

11 Conaway R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

12 Granger R 6 3 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

13 Thornberry R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

14 Weber R 6 3 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

15 Gonzalez D 74 73 73 % ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ %

16 O’Rourke D 94 97 95 % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

17 Flores R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖

18 Jackson Lee D 97 96 81 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

19 Arrington R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

20 Castro D 97 99 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

21 Smith, L. R 3 1 6 ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

22 Olson R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

23 Hurd R 20 11 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

24 Marchant R 3 1 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

25 Williams R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

26 Burgess R 0 0 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

27 Cloud* R 0 N/A 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

27 Farenthold** R 0 N/A 3 ✖ ✖ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

28 Cuellar D 49 41 42 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ %

29 Green, G. D 83 83 67 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

30 Johnson, E.B. D 94 94 86 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

31 Carter, J. R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

32 Sessions R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

33 Veasey D 89 90 88 % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

34 Vela D 80 80 74 % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ %

35 Doggett D 100 99 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

36 Babin R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

UTAH

1 Bishop, R. R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Stewart R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Curtis R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Love R 17 10 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ? ?

VERMONT

AL Welch D 94 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

VIRGINIA

1 Wittman R 6 4 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Taylor R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Scott, R. D 94 97 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 McEachin* D 86 87 87 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

5 Garrett R 9 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Goodlatte R 0 0 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Brat R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Beyer D 86 93 96 % % % ✖ ✖ ? ? % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

9 Griffith R 3 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

10 Comstock R 14 11 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

11 Connolly D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %* Representative McEachin missed a number of votes due to a medical procedure.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

28 Cuellar D 49 41 42 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ %

29 Green, G. D 83 83 67 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

30 Johnson, E.B. D 94 94 86 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

31 Carter, J. R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

32 Sessions R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

33 Veasey D 89 90 88 % % % % ✖ % % ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

34 Vela D 80 80 74 % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ %

35 Doggett D 100 99 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

36 Babin R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

UTAH

1 Bishop, R. R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Stewart R 3 1 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Curtis R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Love R 17 10 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ? ?

VERMONT

AL Welch D 94 96 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

VIRGINIA

1 Wittman R 6 4 11 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Taylor R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Scott, R. D 94 97 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 McEachin* D 86 87 87 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

5 Garrett R 9 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Goodlatte R 0 0 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Brat R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Beyer D 86 93 96 % % % ✖ ✖ ? ? % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

9 Griffith R 3 1 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

10 Comstock R 14 11 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ?

11 Connolly D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %



2018

115t

h C

on

gre

ss

Lif

eti

me

De

layi

ng

Pu

blic

He

alth

Pro

tect

ion

sU

nd

erm

inin

g C

lean

Air

Sta

nd

ard

sA

ssau

lt o

n E

nd

ang

ere

d S

alm

on

an

d

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

Loca

l an

d T

ribal

Gov

ern

me

nt C

on

sent

o

n N

ucl

ear

Was

te T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Nu

cle

ar S

tora

ge

Un

de

rmin

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s

Att

ack

on

Ala

ska’

s N

atio

nal

Fo

rest

sE

limin

atin

g C

lean

Wat

er S

afe

gu

ard

sG

utt

ing

Env

iron

me

ntal

Rev

iew

for

Min

ing

Pro

ject

s

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al R

esc

issi

on

Pac

kag

eG

utt

ing

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

Fun

din

gN

atio

nal

Oce

an P

olic

y

Ass

ault

on

Cle

an E

ne

rgy

& C

lean

Wat

erLCV SCORES

WASHINGTON

1 DelBene D 94 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Larsen, R. D 89 90 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

3 Herrera Beutler R 11 10 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Newhouse R 6 3 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 McMorris Rodgers R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Kilmer D 94 97 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Jayapal* D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

8 Reichert R 26 27 35 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Smith, Adam D 100 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Heck D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

WEST VIRGINIA

1 McKinley R 11 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Mooney R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Jenkins, E.** R 9 5 4 ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? i i

WISCONSIN

1 Ryan, P. R N/A N/A 11 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE VOTES AT HIS DISCRETION. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE VOTES AT HIS DISCRETION.

2 Pocan D 100 94 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Kind D 89 91 89 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ?

4 Moore† D 94 97 94 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Sensenbrenner R 6 6 25 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ✖

6 Grothman R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Duffy R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Gallagher R 0 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

WYOMING

AL Cheney R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

* Representative Jayapal entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 420, which would have been scored as pro-environment.** Representative Jenkins resigned on September 30, 2018 to serve as Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.† Representative Moore entered a statement into the Congressional Record noting how she would have voted on roll call vote 328, which would have been scored as pro-environment.


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

d C

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

e C

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

WASHINGTON

1 DelBene D 94 96 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2 Larsen, R. D 89 90 91 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

3 Herrera Beutler R 11 10 9 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

4 Newhouse R 6 3 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 McMorris Rodgers R 6 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

6 Kilmer D 94 97 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Jayapal* D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? %

8 Reichert R 26 27 35 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? % ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖

9 Smith, Adam D 100 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

10 Heck D 94 97 97 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

WEST VIRGINIA

1 McKinley R 11 6 6 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Mooney R 0 0 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

3 Jenkins, E.** R 9 5 4 ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ? i i

WISCONSIN

1 Ryan, P. R N/A N/A 11 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE VOTES AT HIS DISCRETION. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE VOTES AT HIS DISCRETION.

2 Pocan D 100 94 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3 Kind D 89 91 89 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ ?

4 Moore† D 94 97 94 % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

5 Sensenbrenner R 6 6 25 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ? ✖

6 Grothman R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

7 Duffy R 0 0 2 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

8 Gallagher R 0 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

WYOMING

AL Cheney R 0 0 0 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ? ? ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

ADD MY VOICE TO AMERICA’S ENVIRONMENTAL MAJORITY

Please visit scorecard.lcv.org to view the National Environmental Scorecard

electronically, share it with friends and family, and learn more about how

you can join with other environmental activists around the country who are

making their voices heard from the statehouse to the White House.

To make an additional contribution to LCV to support our efforts to turn your

environmental values into national priorities, please use the enclosed enve-

lope or visit lcv.org/donate.

Sign up for LCV’s email updates at lcv.org and join LCV’s mobile action net-

work by texting “LCV” to 877-877.

Take action on a wide array of pressing environmental issues at lcv.org/act.

Thank you for being the voice for the environment.

http://scorecard.lcv.org

http://lcv.org/donate

http://lcv.org

http://lcv.org/act


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

dC

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

eC

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

CALIFORNIA

1 LaMalfa R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Huffman* D 91 96 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

3 Garamendi D 91 93 90 % ? % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 McClintock R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Thompson, M. D 100 97 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Matsui D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Bera D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

9 McNerney D 91 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

10 Denham R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

11 DeSaulnier D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

12 Pelosi D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Lee, B. D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Speier** D 40 70 85 % % % ? ? % % ? % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % %

15 Swalwell† D 89 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ?

16 Costa D 69 50 49 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

17 Khanna D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 Eshoo‡ D 94 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

19 Lofgren D 97 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

20 Panetta D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Valadao R 11 9 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

22 Nunes R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

23 McCarthy R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

This publication was designed and printed using 100% wind power and was

printed on an alcohol-free press with soy-based inks on 100% recycled stock.

740 15TH STREET NW, SUITE 700 | WASHINGTON, DC 20005

PHONE: 202.785.8683 | LCV.ORG

youtube.com/lcv2008

facebook.com/LCVoters

twitter.com/LCVoters

instagram.com/LCVoters


HOUSE VOTES

Bo

rde

r Wal

l Fu

nd

ing

&

Ant

i-Im

mig

rant

Po

licy

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al F

arm

Bill

Att

ack

on

Oce

ans

and

Fis

he

ries

Man

age

me

nt

Priv

atiz

ing

Fe

de

ral I

nfra

stru

ctu

reA

ttac

k o

n P

ub

lic P

rote

ctio

ns

Un

de

rmin

ing

th

e L

and

& W

ate

r C

on

serv

atio

n F

un

dM

eth

ane

Po

llutio

n S

afe

gu

ard

sIg

no

ring

th

e C

ost

s o

f Clim

ate

Ch

ang

eU

nd

erm

inin

g S

afe

gu

ard

s fo

r

Saf

e S

eaf

oo

dC

on

sum

ptio

nB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r Pre

ble

’s

Me

adow

Ju

mp

ing

Mo

use

Un

de

rmin

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Ch

esa

pe

ake

Bay

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for

New

Mex

ico

M

ead

ow J

um

pin

g M

ou

seB

lock

ing

Pro

tect

ion

s fo

r th

e

Less

er P

rairi

eC

hic

ken

Att

ack

on

Iro

nwo

od

Fo

rest

N

atio

nal

Mo

nu

me

ntE

limin

atin

g E

nviro

nm

ent

al J

ust

ice

Gra

nts

Un

de

rmin

ing

Acc

ess

to t

he

Co

urt

sA

nti-

Clim

ate

So

lutio

ns

Re

solu

tion

Ant

i-E

nviro

nm

ent

al S

pe

nd

ing

Bill

Min

imiz

ing

Me

than

e P

ollu

tion

Un

de

rmin

ing

NE

PA R

evie

w in

L

iqu

efie

d N

atu

ral G

as P

roje

cts

Blo

ckin

g P

rote

ctio

ns

for G

ray

Wo

lve

sB

ord

er W

all F

un

din

g

CALIFORNIA

1 LaMalfa R 3 1 1 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

2 Huffman* D 91 96 98 % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

3 Garamendi D 91 93 90 % ? % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

4 McClintock R 6 3 4 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

5 Thompson, M. D 100 97 93 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

6 Matsui D 94 97 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

7 Bera D 91 96 93 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

9 McNerney D 91 94 94 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ✖ % %

10 Denham R 9 7 7 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

11 DeSaulnier D 100 100 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

12 Pelosi D 100 97 94 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

13 Lee, B. D 100 100 96 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

14 Speier** D 40 70 85 % % % ? ? % % ? % % % % % % % ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % %

15 Swalwell† D 89 93 95 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ?

16 Costa D 69 50 49 % % ✖ ✖ ✖ % % ✖ ✖ % % % ✖ % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % ✖ % % % % % % % % % ✖ ✖ %

17 Khanna D 100 99 99 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

18 Eshoo‡ D 94 97 97 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? ? % %

19 Lofgren D 97 99 91 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ? % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

20 Panetta D 94 96 96 % % % ✖ ✖ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Valadao R 11 9 5 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ %

22 Nunes R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ? ✖

23 McCarthy R 3 3 3 ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ % ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

scorecard.lcv.org

scorecard · 2 scorecard.lcv.org | 2018 national environmental scorecard · lcv 2018 overview we...

Documents