Clean Water

House Roll Call Vote 304

2000 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

208

Votes Against

216

Not Voting

10

The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to protect the nation’s water supplies. Since 1972, EPA has used that authority to double the percentage of the nation’s water that is safe for swimming and fishing and to increase the number of people served by sewage treatment plants from 85 million in 1972 to 173 million today.

One of the most important weapons in the EPA arsenal is its ability to regulate drinking-water levels of toxic chemicals such as arsenic, which the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently affirmed as a potential cause of lung, bladder, and skin cancer. The NAS also noted that EPA’s current arsenic standard, first established in 1942, is outdated and unsafe. EPA missed the last three statutory deadlines to update its arsenic standards; however, the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require that they set a new standard by January 1, 2001.

A rider attached to H.R. 4635, the FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill, would impede EPA from substantially reducing permissible levels of arsenic in tap water and even prohibit EPA from enforcing the current arsenic standard.

In addition the bill contained a rider that would halt EPA’s clean up of contaminated sediments in U.S. waterways pending completion of an NAS study. Toxic chemicals, such as PCBs, in river, lake, and harbor sediments can contaminate fish and pose a serious threat to public health. A previous NAS study and research by EPA and independent scientists all indicate that removal of toxic sediments from waterways is the safest and best course of action to protect the environment and the public’s health. The broad language of this provision would interfere with clean up of at least 28 sites in 15 states. This provision could prevent not only clean up of toxic sediments but also clean up planning and negotiations.

During consideration of H.R. 4635, Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced an amendment to strike these anti-environment provisions from the appropriations bill. On June 21, 2000, the House rejected the Hinchey-Waxman amendment, 208– 216 (House roll call vote 304). YES is the pro-environment vote. In October, the Senate also passed a VA-HUD appropriations bill that included restrictions on new arsenic standards and on the removal of toxics from lakes and rivers. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered amendments to strip these riders from the bill on the Senate floor; however, her amendments failed to pass.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2000 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2000 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2000 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2000 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2000 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2000 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2000 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2000 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2000 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2000 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2000 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2000 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2000 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2000 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2000 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2000 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2000 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2000 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2000 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2000 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2000 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2000 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2000 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2000 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2000 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2000 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2000 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2000 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2000 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2000 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2000 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2000 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2000 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2000 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2000 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2000 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2000 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2000 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2000 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2000 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2000 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2000 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2000 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2000 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2000 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2000 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2000 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2000 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2000 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2000 State Scorecard Average

3%