take more money and run

7/31/2019 Take More Money and Run

1/39

^

More

W O R K I N G G R O U PT M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Take the Money...And Run

Will money and politics in the Senate haveenvironmental consequences?

Daniel J. Weiss

$

$$$$$

$$$$$$ $

$ $

$$$$$$

$$$$$

Andrew B. Art


2/39

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Molly Evans who designed and produced the report and to Ken Cook and Carl

Pope for their guidance and advice in overseeing this project. The Sierra Club thanks the followingpeople for their help in preparing this report: John Barry, Barry Bergman, Kathryn Hohmann and Becky

Steckler. The Environmental Working Group thanks Jacqueline Savitz for her editing and advice.

This report was made possible by grants from The Schuman Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Schuman Foundation or The Joyce Foundation.

Copyright February 1997, by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center and the Sierra

Club. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America, printed on recycled paper.

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based inWashington, D.C. The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Center, a California

public benefit corporation based in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support ser-vices to nonprofit programs and projects.

Kenneth A. Cook, President.Mark B. Childress, Vice President for Policy.

Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research.

SIERRACLUB

The Sierra Club is Americas largest grassroots organization with more than 600,000 members. TheSierra Club is a non-profit, member-supported, public interest organization that promotes conservation of

the natural environment by influencing public policy decisions via legislative, administrative, legaland electoral action.

Adam Werbach, President.

Carl Pope, Executive Director.

To Order A Copy

Copies of this report are available from the Sierra Club. Call 415-977-5747 for details.

World Wide Web

Environmental Working Group publications are available on the World Wide Web at. More information about the Sierra Club and its publications can be found at

.

W O R K I N G G R O U PT M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L


3/39

Take the Money...

And Run.

Executive Summary ................................................................................. 1

Chapter 1. Regulatory Reform............................................................... 5

Chapter 2. The Threat to Cleaner Air .................................................13

Chapter 3. Methodology ......................................................................21

Appendix 1. Top 50 member companies ofthe Alliance for Reasonable Regulation, Project Relief,and the Air Quality Standards Coalition. ............................................23

Appendix 2. Top Contributors to members of the Senatefrom Alliance for Reasonable Regulation, Project Relief,and Air Quality Standards Coalition PACs...........................................25

^

More


4/39

1Environmental Working Group/Sierra Club

Executive Summary

Anti-environmental

PACs contributed $29

million to senators as

part of their campaign

to weaken

environmental laws.

Donors and politicians alike concur that Capitol Hill is where the rubber met theroad in reconciling special interest demands and legislative decision-making. Wash-ington Post, Feb. 11, 1997.

- or -

Show me the money!!!! Wide Receiver Rod Tidwell inJerry Maguire

Since 1990, there has been an unprecedented explosion of campaign cash in our electoralprocess. The Washington Post noted that Election 96 ranked as the costliest ever(Feb. 9, 1997). Political action committees especially industry PACs are one of the

main sources of these dollars for congressional races. In the 1995-1996election cycle, PACs donated a record $186 million to U.S. Senate andHouse candidates. Contributions from PACs increased $12 million overthe 1994 election cycle, and were $62 million more than in the 1990election cycle.

These millions of dollars bought donors access to legislators and tre-mendous leverage over the congressional agenda. The never-endingsearch for campaign contributions increases the pressure on many senators and representationsto advocate special-interest legislation that benefits several hundred large corporations at theexpense of the rest of us.

During the past two years, anti-environmental corporations vigorously attempted to convincethe U.S. Senate to undo environmental health and safety standards. We searched public disclo-sure records to determine whether generous contributions from PACs associated with an anti-environmental agenda were an effective tool to help them persuade senators to support such anagenda.

Our research shows that over the last three election cycles, regulatory reform and anti-Clean Air Act PACs contributed more than $29 million to senators serving in the 105th Con-gress. In the 104th Congress, the Senate attempted to pass a sweeping regulatory reform lawthat would have weakened every environmental law. The Senate did pass another measure thatblocked the enforcement of the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws. These effortsfailed because of an outcry of opposition by the American people, a principled group of senators,and President Clinton.


5/39

2 Take More Money...And Run.

Senators that voted

for regulatory reform

and anti-Clean Air

Act legislation

received an average

of $410,000 from

anti-environmentPACs.

The polluters and their Senate allies havent given up on their efforts to roll back environ-mental protection standards. In the first days of the 105th Congress, Senate leaders promised topursue this agenda again in 1997. It is no coincidence that regulatory reform and an attempt toblock stronger clean air health standards are on the Senates agenda, thanks to the massive dol-lars doled out by polluter PACs to their Senate allies.

Americans have the right to know how their senators voted on previous attempts to gut envi-ronmental laws, and how much money they received from companies that would benefit fromthose votes. This study, Take More Money . . . and Run, documents which senators took large

contributions from anti-environmental corporate PACs, and how theyvoted on weakening key environmental protection programs. The studyfocuses on two votes cast in the 104th Congress critical decisionswhere Americas health hung in the balance. The 1995 votes on regula-tory reform and blocking clean air standards endangered the clean, safeenvironment that Americans hold dear. Senate leaders indicate thatregulatory reform and clean air standards are likely to be two of the big-

gest environmental debates in the Senate in 1997. Senators are likely tovote on both of these issues this year.

In this study, we found that those PAC contributions from anti-envi-ronmental interests who advocated regulatory reform and stopping clean air enforcement wereclosely linked with votes in favor of these special interest bills. We identified 473 PACs thatadvocated these two anti-environmental provisions. They gave more than $29 million to sena-tors from January 1991 through November 1996. The 46 senators currently serving in the 105thSenate who voted for both the regulatory reform and the anti-Clean Air Act enforcementproposals took a total of $18.9 million in anti-environmental PAC money since 1991, an aver-age of $410,540 per senator.

It is critical that the public and the media understand the connection between these votesand polluter PAC dollars before the Senate votes on these issues again.

Regulatory ReformRegulatory ReformRegulatory ReformRegulatory ReformRegulatory Reform

We want broad regulatory reform . . . I think weve got the votes to do it this time. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce, Jan. 8, 1997.

In the summer of 1995, there was an epic struggle in the Senate over Sen. Bob Doles (R-Kan.) regulatory reform bill, S. 343. This bill would have undermined environmental healthstandards, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to address new environmental threats. Underthe guise of streamlining government, special interests, led by oil and chemical companies, ad-vocated proposals that would have weakened all of our environmental protection programs withthe passage of a single bill.

In July 1995, Sen. Dole brought S. 343 to the floor of the Senate. A group of senators, led byJohn Kerry (D-Mass.), refused to end debate on S. 343, knowing that this bill would have gutted


6/39


The Senate

leadership has

indicated that it

intends to resurrect

efforts to pass

regulatory reform

legislation, and may

attempt to block

proposed clean airhealth standards.

environmental protection. In an attempt to cut off debate and pass the bill, Sen. Dole forcedthree cloture votes. Each attempt failed to get the required 60 votes. Doles third attempt the squeaker failed by a mere two-vote margin. That close vote is examined in this study.

Take More Money . . . and Run analyzes the campaign contributions from a total of 407 PACs

funded by companies that are members of the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation and/orProject Relief, the two leading coalitions that lobbied for Doles bill. These PACs gave lav-ishly to senators currently serving in the 105th Congress more than $26 million from January1991 through November 1996. About two-thirds of their contributions went to senators whovoted for their efforts to roll back environmental standards.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has repeatedly said that broad based regulatoryreform continues to be a critical agenda item. The Senate is virtually certain to consider suchlegislation in 1997.

Clean A irClean A irClean A irClean A irClean A i r

Absolutely we are going to consider economic impact and loss of jobs. MajorityLeader Lott, when asked about the proposed new clean air health standards and otherenvironmental issues in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, January 8, 1997.

In 1995, Congress tried to block enforcement of the Clean Air Act, a law that opinion pollsshow is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Rather than attack the Act directly, con-gressional leaders chose to attach a provision to the Environmental Protection Agencys 1996spending bill that would have prevented the agency from enforcing clean air standards, andblocked it from issuing new controls on toxic air pollution from oil refineries. (There weremany other anti-environmental provisions attached to this bill.) In a Nov. 3, 1995 article, the

Wall Street Journal called these provisions a concerted effort by the GOP to restrict EPA en-forcement of clean air and clean water rules.

These back-door efforts to undermine environmental protectionwere included in the House version of the funding bill, H.R. 2099.The Senate approach was more subtle: the attack on the environmentwas hidden in an obscure document that accompanied its version ofthe bill (the Senate Appropriations Committee conference report).The EPA and other agencies generally treat directives in reports fromthe Appropriations Committee as a direct order from Congress.Therefore, senators who voted for the Senate version of H.R. 2099

essentially voted for the provisions to block Clean Air Act enforce-ment and air toxic standards for oil refineries.

This study demonstrates that senators who supported these provisions were also the biggestrecipients of PAC dollars from the companies dedicated to blocking new clean-air health stan-dards. From 1991 to 1996, the 202 PACs affiliated with the Air Quality Standards Coalitiongave $8 million to the 47 senators who voted for the EPA spending bill. Thats an average con-tribution of $175,639 per senator. Over the same period, the 37 senators who opposed the billreceived an average of only $64,013.


7/39


In November 1996, the EPA proposed new, stricter health standards for smog and soot. Theproposed standards would prevent an estimated 20,000 premature deaths annually, and reducethe number of annual serious childhood respiratory cases by 250,000. The new standards wouldreduce the suffering of children, senior citizens and those with respiratory ailments. The newstandards will save lives, reduce suffering, and save billions of dollars in health care bills, lost

productivity and other economic costs. The industry coalition is dedicated to blocking thesestandards.

The clean air standards must be finalized by July 19, 1997. After that, Congress has 45 legis-lative days (which can last far longer than 45 calendar days) to vote to overturn the final stan-dards. Undoubtedly, the coalition will lobby strenuously to overturn more protective standardsin Congress. The Senate may vote on the new health standards sometime this summer or fall.The influence and campaign cash of the industry coalition will be felt as long as thehealth standards are held hostage.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

Many senators take great exception to the notion that campaign contributions affect theirvotes. However, this study demonstrates that there seems to be a relationship between senatorsvotes on environmental issues and the amount of campaign contributions they accept from anti-environmental interests. This seemed to be true in the case of the two critical votes we studiedduring the last Congress.

In 1997, the Senate will face critical decisions on environmental protection. It will decidewhether our air, water and land continue to get cleaner, or are once again choked with pollutionand made unfit for human use and enjoyment.

The Sierra Club and Environmental Working Group believe that when forced to choose be-tween special interests with campaign cash and voters with environmental concerns, too manysenators will decide to take more money and run from their responsibilities to protect Americasenvironment for our families and our future. With critical decisions on regulatory reform andclean air just around the corner, it is up to the media to inform the public about the connectionbetween big money and a dirty environment. And it is the responsibility of an informed publicto communicate its outrage to their elected senators.

Car l P opeCar l P opeCar l P opeCar l P opeCar l P ope Ken Cook Ken Cook Ken Cook Ken Cook Ken Cook

Executive DirectorExecutive DirectorExecutive DirectorExecutive DirectorExecutive Director PresidentPresidentPresidentPresidentPresident

S ierra C lubS ierra C lubS ierra C lubS ierra C lubS ierra C lub Environmental Working GroupEnvironmental Working GroupEnvironmental Working GroupEnvironmental Working GroupEnvironmental Working Group


8/39


Broad regulatory

reform legislation

was designed to

undermine nearly

every health, safety,

and environmental

protection enacted in

the last 25 years.

Regulatory Reform

Regulatory reform will top the U.S. oil industrys agenda this summer, as the fullSenate debates measures to ease environmental and other rules for business, an oil in-dustry spokesman said The Journal of Commerce, June 7, 1995

There is little debate that some government programs can be streamlined. We shouldeliminate unnecessary red tape and needless delays from the regulatory system. In June

1995, the Sierra Club testified before the Senate that we supported efforts to make en-vironmental regulations more effective and tougher, not weaker. TheClub supported approaches which would improve the effectiveness,reduce the intrusiveness, and lower the cost of protecting the environ-mental rights of the American people. The Sierra Club urged the Sen-ate to examine the specific statutes, needs, and problems with each indi-vidual law or program, and to remedy them on a case by case basis. Atthe same time, regulatory reform efforts should not weaken the healthand environmental protection programs that safeguard us all. Regula-tory reform should not jeopardize our families health or environmen-tal protection.

Unfortunately, the effort to enact regulatory reform in the 104th Congress ignored this pre-scription for more effective environmental programs. Instead, it was really an attempt by specialinterests to use one sweeping, complex law to undermine fundamental health, safety and envi-ronmental protection programs. Rather than address specific problems with individual environ-mental laws, the Senate attempted to pass broad regulatory reform legislation that could haveweakened nearly every public health and environmental safeguard enacted in the last 25 years.

Beginning in 1970, Congress enacted a comprehensive array of programs to protect our food,air and water. Refined over 25 years, these standards keep us safe from poisons in our food,smog in our air and toxic chemicals in our water. The programs worked: Americas air and water

are significantly cleaner than they were in 1970, although much work remains before our envi-ronment will be completely safe for our families. Despite this success, there was a concentratedeffort to undo these fundamental protections. This study shows that the senators who supportedthis legislation often received the most money from special interests.

Oil and chemical companies, working with high-powered law firms, designed the legislationwhich was sold to the public as regulatory reform. This so-called reform legislation wouldhave required federal agencies to conduct lengthy, expensive studies before the adoption of new


9/39


public health and environmental protections. If the easy-to-measure industry cleanup costs out-weighed the hard-to-calculate societal benefits by even a single dollar, then environmental stan-dards would not be implemented or enforced. Industry lawyers would have had dozens of newopportunities to sue in order to block the new standards. Some observers dubbed the regulatoryreform legislation a full employment program for industry lawyers.

In 1995, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole introduced an extreme version of regulatoryreform, S. 343, containing a cornucopia of special-interest provisions. The bill allowed existingenvironmental standards no matter how successful to be challenged by requiring the gov-

ernment to conduct lengthy and expensive cost-benefit studies. Theuncertainty and drained agency budgets would have stopped voluntarycompliance in its tracks, taking the environmental cop off of the beat.Finally, the EPA estimated it would have to hire nearly 1,000 new bu-reaucrats and spend $200 million annually just to conduct all of thesestudies. The proposals would have snarled important environmentalprotection programs in red tape. Instead of solving problems, govern-

ment would be forced to study and litigate.

No wonder; the very special interests that would have benefited fromits enactment helped write the S.343. The Associated Press reported in

March 1995 that three lawyers from the firm of Hunton & Williams briefed senators on theirprovisions in the bill. This is a duty typically reserved for Senate staff, not lawyers representingpower plants eager to escape pollution controls under the Clean Air Act.

After prompt committee approval of the bill, Sen. Dole brought S. 343 to the floor in earlyJuly 1995 for debate and quick passage. The bill was strongly supported by Project Relief andthe Alliance for Reasonable Regulation. Both coalitions included lobbyists for tobacco, phar-

maceutical and other special interests. In addition, the American Petroleum Institute, Chemi-cal Manufacturers Association and other industry trade groups joined in the effort to ram thebill through the Senate.

Fortunately, a collection of principled senators including John Kerry (D-Mass.), BarbaraBoxer (D-Calif.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Joe Biden (D-Del.), decided to fight this legisla-tion. They stopped the bill with a filibuster. Senate rules allow unlimited debate on a bill un-less 60 senators vote for cloture. These pro-environment senators revealed how the bill wouldstop meat safety inspections, air and water pollution controls, worker safety inspections andother vital health programs.

Dole made three attempts to get 60 votes to end debate and pass the bill. He fell only twovotes short on the final vote, losing 58 to 40 (Table 4). This was a huge defeat for the Alliancefor Reasonable Regulation and Project Relief which had been lobbying heavily for regulatoryreform, since the House easily passed a similar bill in March 1995. Doles inability to get therequired 60 votes doomed regulatory reform in the 104th Congress.

A total of 407 PACs associated with the two coalitions dedicated to weaker environmentalstandards are analyzed in this study. These PACs gave generously to senators who are now serv-ing in the 105th Congress, providing $26 million since 1991 (Table 5). Two-thirds of the

The top 5 recipients

from pro-regulatory

reform PACs:

Hutchison (R-TX)

DeWine (R-OH)

Santorum (R-PA)

Inhofe (R-OK

Burns (R-MT)


10/39


money was funneled to the 47 senators in the 105th Senate who had supported rolling back en-vironmental standards by voting for cloture on S. 343 during the 104th Congress (Table 1).

The 47 senators who voted for cloture received a total of $17,411,064 in contributions fromthe Project Relief and ARR PACs since 1991. The average contribution to senators supportingthe industry bill was $370,448. That is two and a half times the $147,481 received on average by

the 36 current senators who opposed this effort to gut environmental safeguards. Sen. DanielInouye (D-Hawaii) who was absent and did not vote on cloture on S.343, has received a total of$149,900 from the ARR and Project Relief PACs since 1991.

Twenty-nine of the top 30 recipients in the Senate of ARR and Project Relief PAC contri-butions are Republicans. Of those 29 Republican senators, 28 voted for cloture on S.343. Sen.Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), elected in Nov. 1996, did not serve in the 104th Senate. Smith was,however, the most favored recipient of ARR and Project Relief PAC contributions in the 1996election cycle, raking in 275 contributions totaling $482,572.

The lone Democrat among the top 30 Senate recipients of ARR and Project Relief PAC

contributions was North Dakotas Kent Conrad. He was also the top recipient of these specialinterests cash to vote against cloture on S.343. Conrad received $453,151 from these PACssince 1991.

Bob Dole may be gone from the Senate, but the proponents of regulatory reform fight on.They are already pushing the Senate to take up their cause in the belief that they now have thevotes needed to shut off debate and pass the bill. Majority Leader Lott has been very responsiveto industrys hue and cry. He has pledged to take up regulatory reform in 1997, so another fiercebattle over this bill is inevitable.

Voted Voted

Pro-Environment Anti-Environment

on S.343 on S.343 Did Not Vote

Members of 105th Senate 36 47 1Democrats 36 1 1

Republicans 0 46 0

Pro-Regulatory "Reform" $5,309,299 $17,411,064 $149,900PAC Contributions

Average Contribution toMember of 105th Senate $147,481 $370,448 $149,900

Table 1. Senators who voted for regulatory reform in the 104th Senatereceived, on average, more than two and a half times the ARR and Project ReliefPAC contributions than senators who opposed the industry bill.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Commission data, January 1991-Novem-ber 1996.


11/39


Table 2. Senators who voted for regulatory reformwhile serving in the House in the 104th Congressreceived, on average, about twice the ARR and ProjectRelief PAC contributions than senators who opposed theindustry bill in the House.

Voted VotedPro-Environment Anti-Environment

on H.R. 9 on H.R. 9

Members of 105th Senate 4 5Democrats 4 1

Republicans 0 4

Pro-Regulatory "Reform"PAC Contributions $596,331 $1,443,088

Average Contribution to

Member of 105th Senate $149,083 $288,618

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Com-mission data, January 1991-November 1996.

There are nine senators (eight first elected in November 1996 and Ron Wyden, elected inJanuary 1996) who voted on similar regulatory reform legislation during their tenure in theHouse. For the purposes of this study, we used the vote on H.R. 9, which passed the House onMarch 3, 1995.

The five senators who voted for regulatory reform on H.R. 9 received a total of $1,443,088in special interest PAC contributions from 1991 through November 1996. This group received,on average, almost twice as much in contributions from the ARR and Project Relief PACs thanthe four senators who voted against H.R. 9 (Table 2).

Seven newly elected senators have not voted on regulatory reform in the Senate or House(Table 3). These senators took an average of $167,812 from the ARR and Project Relief PACsduring their race for the Senate. The five Republicans in the group averaged $223,447, whilethe two Democrats averaged $28,725. The looming debate on regulatory reform could be deter-

mined by the votes of these senators. Will they vote to protect their constituents by opposingthis legislation? Or will they do the bidding of the big companies that, in some cases, were ma-jor bankrollers of their campaigns?


12/39


Gordon Smith (R-OR) $482,572

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) $252,315Susan Collins (R-ME) $169,228Michael Enzi (R-WY) $139,352Chuck Hagel (R-NE) $73,766Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $28,750Max Cleland (D-GA) $28,700

Table 3. The 7 first-term Senators who did notpreviously serve in the House of Representativesreceived $1,174,683 from ARR and Project ReliefPACs in the 1995-96 election cycle.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal ElectionCommission data.


13/39


Table 4. In general, senators who supported S. 343 received more money fromARR and Project Relief PACs than senators opposed to regulatory reform.

Senate Vote for House Vote onPAC Contributions Number of Cloture on S.343 H.R. 9Received from the Contributions Roll Call No. 315 Roll Call No. 199

ARR & Project Relief from the Jul. 20, 1995 Mar. 3, 1995PACs ARR & Project Relief Y = Y =

Rank Senators in the 105th Congress (1991-1996) PACs N = + N = +

Total to 105th Senate $26,084,365 23,550 "" = 47, "+" = 36 "" = 5, "+" = 4

1 Kay Hutchison (R-TX) $826,721 555 N/A2 Mike DeWine (R-OH) $804,193 611 N/A3 Rick Santorum (R-PA)* $653,708 664 N/A4 James Inhofe (R-OK)* $624,752 675 N/A5 Conrad Burns (R-MT) $522,361 465 N/A6 John Warner (R-VA) $499,111 402 N/A7 Fred Thompson (R-TN) $492,542 388 N/A8 Jon Kyl (R-AZ)* $488,663 442 N/A9 Gordon Smith (R-OR) $482,572 275 N/A N/A

10 Dan Coats (R-IN) $480,874 445 N/A11 Don Nickles (R-OK) $475,736 384 N/A12 Christopher Bond (R-MO) $472,429 467 N/A13 Kent Conrad (D-ND) $453,151 481 + N/A14 Richard Shelby (R-AL) $433,299 413 N/A15 Pat Roberts (R-KS)* $432,514 467 N/A 16 Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $418,721 371 N/A

17 Slade Gorton (R-WA) $414,976 378 N/A18 Wayne Allard (R-CO)* $412,239 441 N/A 19 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) $409,997 362 N/A20 Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) $394,200 362 N/A21 Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) $385,495 345 N/A22 Arlen Specter (R-PA) $384,541 382 N/A23 Trent Lott (R-MS) $381,329 347 N/A24 Rod Grams (R-MN)* $375,479 342 N/A25 Craig Thomas (R-WY)* $374,420 394 N/A26 John Ashcroft (R-MO) $372,702 330 N/A27 John McCain (R-AZ) $369,184 351 N/A28 Olympia Snowe (R-ME)* $368,008 293 N/A29 Phil Gramm (R-TX) $356,993 277 N/A30 Ted Stevens (R-AK) $353,748 332 N/A31 Ernest Hollings (D-SC) $334,049 334 + N/A32 Frank Murkowski (R-AK) $334,045 346 N/A33 John Breaux (D-LA) $331,967 289 N/A

34 Robert Smith (R-NH) $326,265 304 N/A35 Pete Domenici (R-NM) $324,901 304 N/A36 Larry Craig (R-ID) $324,535 312 N/A37 Spencer Abraham (R-MI) $324,331 214 N/A38 Paul Coverdell (R-GA) $305,515 252 N/A39 Wendell Ford (D-KY) $301,065 260 + N/A40 Charles Grassley (R-IA) $297,871 285 N/A41 Daniel Moynihan (D-NY) $281,256 237 + N/A42 Jesse Helms (R-NC) $278,126 228 N/A43 Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) $273,502 235 N/A44 William Roth (R-DE) $266,436 243 N/A45 Sam Brownback (R-KS)* $265,608 277 N/A 46 Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $265,345 160 + N/A47 Richard Lugar (R-IN) $263,870 258 N/A48 Jeff Sessions (R-AL) $252,315 161 N/A N/A49 Christopher Dodd (D-CT) $252,061 186 + N/A50 Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)* $251,877 247 N/A

51 John Chafee (R-RI) $250,688 255 N/A52 Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) $238,575 229 + N/A53 Strom Thurmond (R-SC) $235,875 208 N/A54 Bill Frist (R-TN) $225,315 152 N/A55 Ben Campbell (R-CO) $219,470 145 N/A56 Bob Kerrey (D-NE) $212,536 172 + N/A57 Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) $211,769 189 + N/A58 Charles Robb (D-VA) $204,627 184 + N/A59 Jack Reed (D-RI)* $199,561 257 N/A +60 Max Baucus (D-MT) $192,555 197 + N/A61 Thomas Daschle (D-SD) $190,871 175 + N/A62 Judd Gregg (R-NH) $188,035 155 N/A


14/39


Senate Vote for House Vote onPAC Contributions Number of Cloture on S.343 H.R. 9Received from the Contributions Roll Call No. 315 Roll Call No. 199

ARR & Project Relief from the Jul. 20, 1995 Mar. 3, 1995PACs ARR & Project Relief Y = Y =

Rank Senators in the 105th Congress (1991-1996) PACs N = + N = +

63 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $184,900 172 + N/A64 John Glenn (D-OH) $184,875 153 + N/A65 Richard Durbin (D-IL)* $184,863 258 N/A +66 Thad Cochran (R-MS) $182,626 150 N/A67 Robert Bennett (R-UT) $181,650 158 N/A68 Bob Graham (D-FL) $180,865 204 + N/A69 Richard Bryan (D-NV) $175,413 157 + N/A70 Susan Collins (R-ME) $169,228 110 N/A N/A71 John Rockefeller (D-WV) $155,450 147 + N/A72 Daniel Inouye (D-HI) $149,900 127 nv N/A73 Dale Bumpers (D-AR) $148,457 126 + N/A74 Tom Harkin (D-IA) $143,889 134 + N/A75 Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) $140,689 144 + N/A76 Robert Byrd (D-WV) $140,500 137 + N/A77 Michael Enzi (R-WY) $139,352 91 N/A N/A78 James Jeffords (R-VT) $131,159 120 N/A79 Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)* $112,986 159 N/A +80 Harry Reid (D-NV) $108,356 108 + N/A

81 Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) $103,925 93 + N/A82 Ron Wyden (D-OR)* $98,921 124 N/A +83 Carl Levin (D-MI) $98,456 99 + N/A84 Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) $97,849 73 + N/A85 Byron Dorgan (D-ND) $96,258 103 + N/A86 Tim Johnson (D-SD)* $80,850 96 N/A 87 Chuck Hagel (R-NE) $73,766 61 N/A N/A88 Barbara Boxer (D-CA) $67,354 55 + N/A89 Daniel Akaka (D-HI) $54,800 65 + N/A90 Patty Murray (D-WA) $28,800 34 + N/A91 Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $28,750 23 N/A N/A92 Max Cleland (D-GA) $28,700 28 N/A N/A93 Patrick Leahy (D-VT) $27,275 61 + N/A94 Paul Wellstone (D-MN) $16,678 24 + N/A95 Russell Feingold (D-WI) $14,850 20 + N/A96 Connie Mack (D-FL)* $10,700 12 N/A97 Edward Kennedy (D-MA) $1,500 8 + N/A

98 John Kerry (D-MA) $300 7 + N/AT99 Herb Kohl (D-WI) $0 4 + N/AT99 Joseph Biden (D-DE) $0 14 + N/A

*Denotes senators whose totals include payments to their House of Representatives election committees from1991-1996.

Note: Senators may later refund contributions to their contributors. In these cases, the refunds are totaled as nega-tive contributions.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Commission data.

Table 4, Continued.


15/39


Table 5. In the last six years, member-companies of ARR or Project Reliefcontributed $26 million to Senators serving in the 105th Congress.

*Contributions from NBWA include a $60,000 independent expenditure against Senator Wellstone.**Contributions from NFIB include a $3,600 independent expenditure against Senator Feingold.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Commission data, January 1991-November1996.

Amount Number

Contributed of Contributions

to Current Members to Current Members

Top 50 Companies with PACs in of 105th Senate of 105th Senate Number of

Rank the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation or Project Relief (1991-1996) (1991-1996) PACs

Total from ARR & Project Relief Members $26,084,365 23,550 407

1 National Assoc. of Realtors $1,121,172 528 2

2 United Parcel Service Of America, Inc. $760,730 661 1

3 American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $634,611 642 3

4 CNW Corp. $616,088 465 2

5 National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc.* $613,100 288 1

6 Federal Express Corp. $512,300 272 1

7 General Electric Co. / Kidder Peabody, Inc. $506,560 567 2

8 Associated General Contractors of America $497,300 214 3

9 General Motors Corp. $473,449 444 3

10 National Federation of Independent Business ** $438,184 260 3

11 Independent Insurance Agents Of America, Inc. $410,964 339 1

12 National Restaurant Assoc. $378,364 173 1

13 BellSouth Communications, Inc. $375,984 308 5

14 Philip Morris Co.s, Inc. $368,214 368 3

15 Chevron Corp. $353,398 231 1

16 Exxon Co. U.S.A. $345,200 200 1

17 American Trucking Assoc. $343,670 377 5

18 Food Marketing Institute $326,273 335 1

19 CSX Corp. $318,050 318 3

20 Beech Aircraft Corp. $279,509 331 7

21 International Paper Co. $275,049 105 1

22 Bankamerica Corp. $271,024 252 4

23 Tenneco $258,500 213 2

24 Textron, Inc. $257,700 163 1

25 Chase Bank Of Arizona $257,295 227 4

26 National Mining Assoc. $244,199 179 2

27 Nus Corp. $240,750 202 3

28 Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc. $219,860 197 3

29 FMC Corp. $215,000 190 1

30 Rockwell International Corp. $213,849 187 131 Ford Motor Co. $211,494 215 2

32 United Technologies Corp. $209,700 183 1

33 Southern Co. $208,250 435 6

34 Amoco Corp. $206,800 245 1

35 Associated Builders & Contractors $203,000 105 1

36 International Council Of Shopping Centers, Inc. $190,700 141 1

37 Occidental International Corp. $183,300 163 3

38 Chrysler Corp. $176,470 183 2

39 Westvaco Corp. $174,000 64 1

40 Westinghouse Electric Corp. $170,055 168 1

41 Printing Industries of America, Inc. $170,032 137 1

42 National Electrical Contractors Assoc., Inc. $167,500 100 1

43 Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Assoc. $165,600 88 2

44 Mobil Oil Corp. $165,250 87 1

45 National Assoc. of Convenience Stores $163,962 95 146 Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. $163,750 166 2

47 Texaco, Inc. $161,069 166 1

48 du Pont de Nemours & Co., E.I. $160,847 189 3

49 Columbia Gas Transportation Corp. (colum Gas Sys) $159,476 208 3

50 ITT Corp. $158,811 140 3


16/39


Stricter clean air

health standards are

needed to protect

children, senior

citizens and others

from soot and smog.

The Threat to

Cleaner Air

Corporate Americas immediate objective is to amass enough grassroots strength andto drop enough political bombshells to force the Clinton administration to yank thenew regulations. Industry is also ginning up opposition in Congress. National

Journal, Jan. 4, 1997.

The Clean Air Act provides fundamental environmental safeguards. It is designed to

eradicate urban smog, acid rain and toxic air pollution. These pollutants cause or exac-erbate asthma and other respiratory illnesses, cause cancer, and poison rivers, lakes and

streams. Children, senior citizens and those suffering from respiratory diseases are most vulner-able.

It took 10 years for Congress to pass the Clean Air Act of 1990,which was designed to significantly reduce these pollutants. The Acthas succeeded; levels of all major air pollutants are lower. For example,since 1985, the level of carcinogenic benzene is down by nearly 40 per-cent. Nonetheless, an estimated 64,000 Americans die prematurelyevery year due to exposure to soot and urban smog. Three in 10 Ameri-

cans live in communities that violate the current health standard,which does not adequately protect their health. Clearly, more air pollu-tion reductions are needed to protect our families and our future.

During the debate over the original Clean Air Act, industry made dire predictions that theAct would cause massive loss of jobs. As expected, these warnings turned out to be completelyunfounded. The EPA found that since 1970, total air pollution has decreased while our grossdomestic product has increased. Despite this success, the oil, utility, chemical, auto and otherindustries want to eviscerate the Clean Air Act. They believe it is more profitable to keep pol-luting, knowing that without strong health standards and mandated pollution reductions, thepublic pays the price and the polluters dont.

In 1995, the polluters, their Washington lobbyists and their allies on Capitol Hill devised aback-door strategy to undo the Clean Air Act and other environmental health programs.Rather than face the voters wrath with a frontal attack on the Clean Air Act, they chose a be-hind-the-scenes approach. The House Republican leadership added 17 anti-environment provi-sions (or riders) in the House version of the HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations billfor Fiscal Year 1996 (which includes funds for the EPA), H.R. 2099. Pro-environment legisla-tors mounted a valiant effort to remove the riders, but failed by a narrow margin.


17/39


The top 5 recipients of

donations from pro-

regulatory reform

PACs:

Hutchison (R-TX)

DeWine (R-OH)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Warner (R-VA)

Burns (R-MT)

After the uproar in the House over the riders, opponents of the environment in the Senate be-came even more covert. Rather than include all the riders in the Senate version of H.R. 2099, theSenate leadership buried them in the Appropriations Committee conference report that accompa-nied the bill. The report indicated that the EPA should halt its plans to reduce airborne toxicchemicals emitted by oil refineries, as required by the Clean Air Act, even though refineries emit

significant amounts of benzene and other chemicals known to cause cancer. The report said thatEPA should not implement programs . . . in a manner inconsistent with the intent of Congress . . .The [Appropriations] Committee strongly encourages EPA to reevaluate the refinery [standard]. Report 104-140, pp 95-96.

The report included another provision that would have blocked the EPA from enforcing compa-nies compliance with their air pollution permits. These permits are the major enforcement mecha-nism in the Clean Air Act. Without a permit program, we would never know whether companiesare emitting illegal levels of air pollution.

Although committee conference reports do not carry the weight of law,

they often include directives that federal agencies must follow, lest they an-ger the senators responsible for appropriating money to the agencies. Inother words, the EPA would not have taken steps to reduce oil refinery airpollution, or enforce existing air pollution limits, if H.R. 2099 became law.

Finally, the Senate version of H.R. 2099 would have made draconiancuts in money for enforcement, thereby handcuffing the EPAs ability toeffectively enforce the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws. To-gether, these three provisions would have blocked critical air pollution re-

duction programs. EPA Administrator Carol Browner warned: The environmental budget passedby the Senate places the American public at serious risk. Thus, when 55 senators voted for H.R.

2099 on Sept. 27, 1995, they were supporting a bill that contained provisions that would haveboosted the amount of air pollution and respiratory illnesses, cancer and death. Forty-seven of those55 senators are currently serving in the 105th Congress (Table 9).

Fortunately, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 2099, and forced Congress to remove the provisionsthat weakened protection from air pollution and other environmental threats.

EPA Proposes New C lean A ir Hea lth S tandardsEPA Proposes New C lean A ir Hea lth S tandardsEPA Proposes New C lean A ir Hea lth S tandardsEPA Proposes New C lean A ir Hea lth S tandardsEPA Proposes New C lean A ir Hea lth S tandards

Americas air quality has improved drastically over the past 25 years. Nonetheless, serious airpollution problems persist and pose a direct threat to human health. This link is extraordinarily

well demonstrated in the peer reviewed scientific literature. A series of studies from across thecountry and around the world have repeatedly shown that polluted air increases premature mortalityrates. Moreover, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that soot causes 64,000 prema-ture deaths annually and the EPA has estimated that air pollution causes 70,000 premature deathseach year1. Other research shows that long-term exposure to smog results in permanent scarring ofchildrens lungs, and not just temporary effects.

To determine whether current health standards are adequate, scientists reviewed more than3,000 studies (including 270 comprehensive studies of human subjects) on the link between air pol-


18/39


lution and health. An independent panel of 21 scientists, including industry scientists, concludedthat the existing health standards for tiny soot particles (particulates) and ground-level ozone(smog) are inadequate to protect public health. Four of these scientists wrote to EPA Administra-tor Carol Browner that health studies show a causal relationship between particulate air pollutionand excess mortality and morbidity.

Following its scientists recommendation, the EPA proposed more protective health standardsfor particulates and smog. The proposed health standards would prevent an estimated 20,000 pre-mature deaths annually, and reduce childhood respiratory ailment cases by 250,000 per year. TheEPA made its proposal on Nov. 27, 1996, and is required to issue final standards by July 19, 1997.

The Clinton administrations proposed PM2.5 standard for particulates represents a significantimprovement in the status quo. But in order to fully protect the public health, and particularly thehealth of the most vulnerable individuals in the population, it must be strengthened substantially.By the EPAs own calculations, the proposed rule would reduce premature mortality from airborneparticulates by 50 percent, while tens of thousands of premature deaths will continue even after

the proposed health standards are met. (Environmental News, Nov. 27, 1996).

To better protect public health, the Environmental Working Group and the Sierra Club sup-port the annual average PM2.5 standard of 10 g/m

3 as recommended by the American Lung Asso-ciation and the Natural Resources Defense Council. This goal will provide dramatic health ben-efits when achieved, and puts the agency more squarely in compliance with the basic requirementsand intent of the law. To guard against the adverse health effects of peak particulate exposures, werecommend a 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 20 g/m

3.

In reaction to the EPAs proposal to provide more protection for Americans, the polluters havebeen mobilized by the National Association of Manufacturers to defeat these standards. As the

National Journal reported in January 1997, [c]orporate giants from the oil, chemical, electric util-ity and trucking industries are working together under the banner of the Air Quality StandardsCoalition. . . . The coalition boasts more than 500 members and a war chest thats estimated atwell over $2 million.

The coalitions strategy is to persuade senators to kill the new health standards by prevailingupon President Clinton to weaken or drop them. If Clinton resists this pressure, then Congresshas 45 legislative days to vote to overturn the new standards. This action must be signed by thepresident. If he vetoes it, then two-thirds of the Senate and House must vote to override his vetoof the bill to block adoption of the new health standards.

Analysis of the PACs associated with members of the Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC)revealed that they gave a total of $ 11.9 million to current senators from 1991 through 1996(Table 10). They contributed a total of $ 8.2 million to 47 senators of the 105th Congress whovoted in the 104th Congress to weaken the Clean Air Act as part of H.R. 2099, an average of$175,639 per senator since 1991 (Table 9). On the other hand, the 37 Senators of the 105th Con-gress who opposed H.R. 2099 received $2.4 million from the AQSC PACs an average of$65,791 per senator since 1991. In other words, of the Senators in the 105th Congress, those whosupported the industry position on H.R. 2099 received nearly three times as much in PAC contri-butions from AQSC members than the senators who opposed H.R. 2099 (Table 6).


19/39


Nine senators (eight first elected in 1996 and Ron Wyden, elected in January 1996) voted onclean air as members of the House during the 104th Congress. For the purposes of this study, weused the vote on an amendment to remove the anti-clean air provisions from H.R. 2099, whichfailed on July 31, 1995. The four recent House veterans who voted to block enforcement of theClean Air Act received a total of $611,853 between 1991 and 1996, an average of $152,963 persenator. The five recent House veterans who voted to enforce the Clean Air Act received atotal of $203,783, an average of $40,757 per senator. That is about one-fourth of what the aver-age senator received who supported the special interests while serving in the House (Table 7).

Seven newly elected senators have not voted on clean air in either the Senate or House.These senators took an average of $67,199 from the same polluter PACs during their races forthe Senate in 1996 (Table 8). The upcoming debate on stronger clean air standards could bedetermined by the views of these senators. Will they support efforts to protect their constituentsby opposing this special-interest legislation? Or will they do the bidding of the big companiesthat, in some cases, were major bankrollers of their campaigns?

Table 6. Senators who voted to block Clean Air Actenforcement in the 104th Senate received, on average,nearly three times the Air Quality Standards CoalitionPAC contributions than senators who voted against H.R.2099.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Com-mission data, January 1991-November 1996.

Voted Voted

Pro-Environment Anti-Environmenton H.R.2099 on H.R.2099

Senators in 105th Congress 36 47

Democrats 36 1

Republicans 0 46

Pro-Regulatory "Reform"

PAC Contributions $2,368,490 $8,255,032



NoteNoteNoteNoteNote

1For more information about the link between air pollution and human health, contact the Environmental Working Group.


20/39


Voted VotedPro-Environment Anti-Environment

on H.R.2099 on H.R.2099

Senators in 105th Congress 5 4Democrats 5 0

Republicans 0 4

Pro-Regulatory "Reform"PAC Contributions $203,783 $611,853



Table 7. Senators who voted to block Clean Air Actenforcement while serving in the House in the 104thCongress received, on average, about four times the AirQuality Standards Coalition PAC contributions thansenators who opposed the industry bill in the House.

Gordon Smith (R-OR) $178,141Jeff Sessions (R-AL) $108,150Michael Enzi (R-WY) $73,000Susan Collins (R-ME) $49,000Chuck Hagel (R-NE) $32,650Max Cleland (D-GA) $18,700Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $10,750

Table 8. The 7 first-term senators who did notpreviously serve in the House of Representativesreceived $470,391 from Air Quality StandardsCoalition PACs in the 1995-96 election cycle.




21/39


Senate Vote on House Vote onPAC Contributions Number of H.R. 2099 H.R. 2099Received from the Contributions Roll Call No. 470 Roll Call No. 605

Air Quality Standards from the Sept. 27, 1995 Jul. 31, 1995Coalition Air Quality Standards Y = Y = +

Rank Senators in the 105th Congress (1991-1996) Coalition N = + N =

Total to 105th Senate $11,909,549 11,278 37 = +, 47 = 5 = +, 4 = -

1 Kay Hutchison (R-TX) $451,934 298 N/A2 Mike DeWine (R-OH) $336,928 287 N/A3 James Inhofe (R-OK)* $286,700 344 N/A4 John Warner (R-VA) $269,215 217 N/A5 Conrad Burns (R-MT) $265,927 246 N/A6 Rick Santorum (R-PA)* $261,028 308 N/A7 Dan Coats (R-IN) $259,270 232 N/A8 Christopher Bond (R-MO) $255,732 259 N/A9 Don Nickles (R-OK) $255,600 220 N/A

10 Fred Thompson (R-TN) $252,896 209 N/A11 Richard Shelby (R-AL) $231,687 220 N/A12 Kent Conrad (D-ND) $225,474 266 + N/A13 Pat Roberts (R-KS)* $213,283 251 N/A

14 Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $212,300 190 N/A15 Arlen Specter (R-PA) $207,672 208 N/A16 Phil Gramm (R-TX) $207,650 143 N/A17 Jon Kyl (R-AZ)* $202,163 215 N/A18 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) $199,501 172 N/A19 Ted Stevens (R-AK) $197,900 178 N/A20 Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) $188,882 164 N/A21 Wayne Allard (R-CO)* $188,720 228 N/A 22 Trent Lott (R-MS) $187,900 178 N/A23 John McCain (R-AZ) $183,243 174 N/A24 Gordon Smith (R-OR) $178,141 133 N/A N/A25 Larry Craig (R-ID) $177,550 168 N/A26 Frank Murkowski (R-AK) $176,866 171 N/A27 Robert Smith (R-NH) $170,300 152 N/A28 Pete Domenici (R-NM) $169,798 156 N/A29 Craig Thomas (R-WY)* $165,613 202 N/A30 John Ashcroft (R-MO) $165,370 169 N/A31 Slade Gorton (R-WA) $163,648 160 N/A32 Rod Grams (R-MN)* $161,762 159 N/A33 John Breaux (D-LA) $161,600 144 + N/A34 Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) $154,350 133 N/A35 Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) $151,450 146 N/A36 Spencer Abraham (R-MI) $143,250 99 N/A37 Richard Lugar (R-IN) $139,100 133 N/A38 Paul Coverdell (R-GA) $136,172 130 N/A39 Ernest Hollings (D-SC) $136,127 141 + N/A40 Jesse Helms (R-NC) $135,568 119 N/A41 Wendell Ford (D-KY) $134,248 125 + N/A42 Charles Grassley (R-IA) $121,519 122 N/A43 Olympia Snowe (R-ME)* $121,102 115 N/A44 Sam Brownback (R-KS)* $116,000 127 N/A

45 Strom Thurmond (R-SC) $115,850 97 N/A46 William Roth (R-DE) $112,121 107 N/A47 Daniel Moynihan (D-NY) $108,500 96 + N/A48 Jeff Sessions (R-AL) $108,150 75 N/A N/A49 Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $106,678 62 + N/A50 Thad Cochran (R-MS) $104,551 88 N/A51 John Glenn (D-OH) $103,275 91 + N/A52 Charles Robb (D-VA) $100,601 80 + N/A53 Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) $100,445 100 + N/A54 John Chafee (R-RI) $96,500 101 N/A55 Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)* $93,850 108 N/A 56 Bob Kerrey (D-NE) $92,000 75 N/A57 Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) $90,950 98 + N/A

Table 9. In general, senators who supported H.R. 2099 received more moneyfrom Air Quality Standards Coalition PACs than senators opposed to fullenforcement of the Clean Air Act.


22/39


Senate Vote on House Vote onPAC Contributions Number of H.R. 2099 H.R. 2099Received from the Contributions Roll Call No. 470 Roll Call No. 605

Air Quality Standards from the Sept. 27, 1995 Jul. 31, 1995Coalition Air Quality Standards Y = Y = +

Rank Senators in the 105th Congress (1991-1996) Coalition N = + N =

58 Bill Frist (R-TN) $89,999 65 N/A59 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $87,250 86 + N/A60 John Rockefeller (D-WV) $87,000 80 + N/A61 Robert Byrd (D-WV) $85,500 76 + N/A62 Ben Campbell (R-CO) $83,667 97 N/A63 Robert Bennett (R-UT) $82,048 72 N/A64 Bob Graham (D-FL) $76,250 82 + N/A65 Daniel Inouye (D-HI) $74,100 54 + N/A66 Michael Enzi (R-WY) $73,000 44 N/A N/A67 Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) $72,680 64 + N/A68 Max Baucus (D-MT) $70,300 68 + N/A69 Thomas Daschle (D-SD) $69,375 75 + N/A70 Judd Gregg (R-NH) $66,000 61 N/A71 Christopher Dodd (D-CT) $64,749 63 + N/A

72 Richard Durbin (D-IL)* $63,783 102 N/A +73 Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)* $61,800 84 N/A +74 Tom Harkin (D-IA) $60,812 54 + N/A75 Harry Reid (D-NV) $56,919 55 + N/A76 Carl Levin (D-MI) $51,100 44 + N/A77 Susan Collins (R-ME) $49,000 39 N/A N/A78 Dale Bumpers (D-AR) $45,600 49 + N/A79 James Jeffords (R-VT) $41,250 45 N/A80 Richard Bryan (D-NV) $37,508 44 + N/A81 Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) $34,449 33 + N/A82 Byron Dorgan (D-ND) $34,250 42 + N/A83 Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) $34,000 33 + N/A84 Chuck Hagel (R-NE) $32,650 32 N/A N/A85 Tim Johnson (D-SD)* $30,750 56 N/A +86 Jack Reed (D-RI)* $28,900 47 N/A +87 Max Cleland (D-GA) $18,700 16 N/A N/A

88 Ron Wyden (D-OR)* $18,550 28 N/A +89 Barbara Boxer (D-CA) $15,250 15 + N/A90 Patrick Leahy (D-VT) $12,000 21 + N/A91 Daniel Akaka (D-HI) $11,850 14 + N/A92 Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $10,750 16 N/A N/A93 Russell Feingold (D-WI) $7,100 7 + N/A94 Patty Murray (D-WA) $6,850 10 + N/A95 Connie Mack (R-FL) $3,500 4 N/A96 Paul Wellstone (D-MN) $2,700 5 + N/A97 John Kerry (D-MA) $2,000 2 + N/A98 Edward Kennedy (D-MA) $1,000 3 + N/A

T99 Herb Kohl (D-WI) $0 0 + N/AT99 Joseph Biden (D-DE) $0 2 + N/A

*Denotes senators whose totals include payments to their House of Representatives election committees from 1991-1996.

Note: Senators may later refund contributions to their contributors. In these cases, the refunds are totaled as negativecontributions.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Commission data.

Table 9, Continued.


23/39


Table 10. In the last six years, member-companies of the Air Quality StandardsCoalition PACs contributed nearly $12 million to Senators serving in the 105thCongress.

Amount NumberContributed of Contributions

to Current Members to Current Membersof 105th Senate of 105th Senate Number of

Rank Top 50 Companies with PACs in AQSC (1991-1996) (1991-1996) PACsTotal PAC Contributions from AQSC Members $11,909,549 11,278 202

1 Northrop Grumman Corp. $509,034 429 42 General Motors Corp. $473,449 444 33 Philip Morris Co.s, Inc. $368,214 368 34 Chevron Corp. $353,398 231 15 WMX Technologies, Inc. $352,964 359 36 Exxon Co. U.S.A. $345,200 200 17 American Trucking Assoc. $343,670 377 58 International Paper Co. $275,049 105 19 Tenneco $258,500 213 2

10 National Mining Assoc. $244,199 179 211 Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $237,650 174 212 Boeing Co., The $229,220 231 1

13 FMC Corp. $215,000 190 114 Rockwell International Corp. $213,849 187 115 Ford Motor Co. $211,494 215 216 United Technologies Corp. $209,700 183 117 Southern Co. $208,250 435 618 Amoco Corp. $206,800 245 119 Associated Builders & Contractors $203,000 105 120 AlliedSignal Aerospace $189,000 150 121 Occidental International Corp. $183,300 163 322 Chrysler Corp. $176,470 183 223 Westvaco Corp. $174,000 64 124 Printing Industries of America, Inc. $170,032 137 125 Mobil Oil Corp. $165,250 87 126 Texaco, Inc. $161,069 166 127 du Pont de Nemours & Co., E.I. $160,847 189 328 ARCO $147,090 129 129 National Broiler Council $143,250 159 130 USX Corp. $135,362 118 331 Schering Plough Corp. $135,000 75 132 American Furniture Manufacturers Assoc. $131,800 112 133 Koch Industries, Inc. $129,100 86 134 National Cotton Council $127,142 146 135 Ashland, Inc. $125,261 83 336 Mapco Petroleum, Inc. $122,750 128 137 American Meat Institute $110,605 139 138 General Mills, Inc. $109,162 111 139 Dresser Industries, Inc. $108,800 109 240 American Bakers Assoc. $107,400 96 141 Shell Oil Co. $104,100 103 1

42 American Textile Manufacturers Institute $103,550 102 143 TRW, Inc. $102,800 95 144 Holland & Knight $98,712 99 145 Unocal Corp. $98,254 87 146 Deere & Co. $89,200 79 247 American Portland Cement Alliance $88,069 102 148 Cargill, Inc. $87,000 61 149 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge $86,417 82 150 American Farm Bureau Federation $85,747 80 12

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Commission data, January 1991-November 1996.


24/39


The $29 million in

campaign

contributions is a

very conservative

estimate because it

does not include all

the contributions

from polluter PACs

and individuals.

Methodology

We used Federal Election Commission data on contributions from PACs affiliatedwith companies and trade associations that are actively involved in lobbying insupport of anti-environment regulatory reform and/or blocking enforcement of the

Clean Air Act. These companies belong to one or more coalitions such as Project Relief, theAlliance for Reasonable Regulation, and the Air Quality Standards Coalition. These compa-nies contributed resources to efforts to enact these two radical anti-environmental bills.

Some of the companies that are members of the ARR, Project Relief,or the Air Quality Standards Coalition are not commonly thought of aspolluting industries. Many of these companies, however, have specificanti-environmental agendas. For example, United Parcel Service advo-cates weakening the Clean Air Act requirement that fleet trucks burncleaner fuels. For the National Association of Realtors, a top priority isgutting wetland protections to increase land available for development.Whatever their specific anti-environmental goals, all of the companiesanalyzed in this report are members of one or more of the coalitions westudied.

We examined PAC contributions from 1991 through November1996. This time range includes the last three Senate elections (1992, 1994 and 1996), whichprovides a fair comparison of every senator during his or her re-election cycle, which is whensenators raise the bulk of their campaign contributions. Moreover, while senators run for re-election only once every six years, many of them raise money during their entire term, and notjust in the two years before their next election.

It is important to note that these PAC contribution figures underestimate the total contribu-tions senators received from anti-environment interests. First, these figures only include actualPAC contributions. It is highly likely that many executives from these companies also made

individual contributions to these senators, but these are not included in this study.

Second, many companies with PACs have lobbied the Senate to enact regulatory reform orweaken the Clean Air Act, but are not official members of the broad industry coalitions. PACand individual contributions from these companies are also excluded.

Third, the totals do not reflect the unlimited soft money contributions that companies canmake to political parties that may have been used in support of particular senators.


25/39


Finally, some companies without PACs are members of the coalitions analyzed and lobby onthese issues. Individual contributions from these companies executives and lobbyists are notincluded in this study. For these reasons, the PAC figures understate the actual amount of cam-paign contributions from the anti-environment interests profiled herein.

We used two key votes in this study.

The cloture votes on Sen. Doles regulatory reform bill, S. 343, which occurred on July 20,1995. It failed on a 58-40 vote. (Sixty votes are required for cloture.)

The vote on passage of the Senate version of the HUD-Independent Agencies Appropria-tions bill for Fiscal Year 1996, H.R. 2099, which occurred on Sept. 27, 1995. This bill includedfunding for the EPA. It passed 55-45.

These votes were chosen because they were the two key indicators of where senators stood on

anti-environment regulatory reform, and blocking enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

Fifteen new senators were elected in 1996. Eight of these senators served in the House in1995-1996. They had an opportunity to vote on very similar regulatory reform and anti-CleanAir Act legislation. We used two votes for these former representatives.

The vote to pass the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, H.R. 9, which includedregulatory reform provisions very similar to those in S. 343. On March 3, 1995, the bill passedby a vote of 277-141.

The vote to remove the anti-environmental provisions from the House version of the

HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1996, H.R. 2099. This voteoccurred on a motion by Reps. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Stokes (D-Ohio). On July 31, 1995, itfailed on a 210-210 tie vote.

Although the seven new senators who did not previously serve in the House may have madestatements either for or against the regulatory reform and the proposed clean air health stan-dards, these statements are unlikely to be specific or definitive enough to determine whetherthey will be opponents or proponents of these proposals in 1997. We analyzed and reported ontheir PAC contributions from the polluter PACs so that their constituents will know who theyreceived money from. The reports of these figures do not imply that these senators either sup-port or oppose to these proposals.


26/39

23Sierra Club

Appendix One. Top 50 member companies of the Alliance for Reasonable Regu-lation, Project Relief, and the Air Quality Standards Coalition.

Amount Corporate MembershipContributed Alliance Air

to Current Members For Qualityof 105th Senate Reasonable Project Standards

Rank Top 50 Companies PAC Contributions* (1991-1996) Regulation Relief Coalition

Total for Top 50 PACs $16,410,327

1 National Assoc. of Realtors $1,121,172 Y2 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $760,730 Y3 American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $634,611 Y4 CNW Corp. $616,088 Y5 National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc.** $613,100 Y6 Federal Express Corp. $512,300 Y7 Northrop Grumman Corp. $509,034 Y8 General Electric Co. / Kidder Peabody, Inc. $506,560 Y9 Assoc. Gen. Contractors of America [Nebraska Bldg Chpt.] $497,300 Y

10 General Motors Corp. $473,449 Y Y Y11 National Federation Of Independent Business*** $438,184 Y12 Independent Insurance Agents Of America, Inc. $410,964 Y13 National Restaurant Assoc. $378,364 Y14 BellSouth Communications, Inc. $375,984 Y15 Philip Morris Co.s, Inc. $368,214 Y Y16 Chevron Corp. $353,398 Y Y Y17 WMX Technologies, Inc. $352,964 Y18 Exxon Co. U.S.A. $345,200 Y Y19 American Trucking Assoc. $343,670 Y Y Y20 Food Marketing Institute $326,273 Y21 CSX Corp. $318,050 Y22 Beech Aircraft Corp. $279,509 Y23 International Paper Co. $275,049 Y Y24 Bankamerica Corp. $271,024 Y25 Tenneco $258,500 Y Y26 Textron, Inc. $257,700 Y27 Chase Bank Of Arizona $257,295 Y28 National Mining Assoc. $244,199 Y Y

29 Nus Corp. $240,750 Y30 Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $237,650 Y31 Boeing Co., The $229,220 Y32 Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc. $219,860 Y33 FMC Corp. $215,000 Y Y34 Rockwell International Corp. $213,849 Y Y35 Ford Motor Co. $211,494 Y Y36 United Technologies Corp. $209,700 Y Y37 Southern Co. $208,250 Y Y38 Amoco Corp. $206,800 Y Y Y39 Associated Builders & Contractors $203,000 Y Y Y40 International Council Of Shopping Centers, Inc. $190,700 Y41 AlliedSignal Co. $189,000 Y42 Occidental International Corp. $183,300 Y Y43 Chrysler Corp. $176,470 Y Y44 Westvaco Corp. $174,000 Y Y

45 Westinghouse Electric Corp. $170,055 Y46 Printing Industries of America, Inc. $170,032 Y Y47 National Electrical Contractors Assoc., Inc. $167,500 Y48 Sheet Metal & Air Cond. Contractors National Assoc. $165,600 Y49 Mobil Oil Corp. $165,250 Y Y50 National Assoc. of Convenience Stores $163,962 Y

*Note: Contributions from more than one PAC affiliated with a company may be included in total amount contributed to105th Senate.**Contributions from NBWA include a $60,000 independent expenditure against Senator Wellstone.***Contributions from NFIB include a $3,600 independent expenditure against Senator Feingold.Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Federal Election Commission data (January 1991-November 19Complete list available upon request.


27/39

25Sierra Club

Appendix Two. Top contributors to members of the Senate from Alliance for Rea-sonable Regulation, Project Relief, and Air Quality Standards Coalition PACs.

Amount of Number ofTotal and Amount contributed from Contributions Contributions

State Senator each of the top 5 PACs analyzed. (1991-96) (1991-96)

Alabama Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $270,815 177National Assoc. of Realtors $10,100 3Drummond Co., Inc. $10,000 4International Paper Co. $10,000 4National Federation of Independent Business $8,257 4Associated General Contractors of America $8,000 2

Shelby, Richard (R-AL) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $503,049 468National Assoc. of Realtors $16,746 6Southern Co. $15,750 23Drummond Co., Inc. $15,000 5Chase Manhattan Corp. $14,118 14Bankamerica Corp. $12,500 10

Alaska Murkowski, Frank (R-AK) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $378,212 389American International Group, Inc. $12,500 8Union Pacific Corp. $11,500 11

Northrop Grumman Corp. $11,000 12Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 3Chevron Corp. $10,000 3General Electric Co. $10,000 12

Stevens, Ted R-AK) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $407,248 369Federal Express Corp. $12,000 5American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $10,000 6Boeing Co., The $10,000 5General Motors Corp. $10,000 9Northrop Grumman Corp. $10,000 6Rockwell International Corp. $10,000 6Textron, Inc. $10,000 7United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $10,000 8United Technologies Corp. $10,000 4WMX Technologies, Inc. $10,000 6

Arizona Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $531,063 489National Assoc. of Realtors $64,798 12National Federation of Independent Business $15,697 8United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $13,620 22Associated General Contractors of America $12,500 6Food Marketin Institute $11,700 12

McCain, John (R-AZ) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $421,301 393Federal Express Corp. $14,000 8United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $12,000 9Phelps Dod e Corp. $11,300 8AlliedSi nal Co. $10,000 2Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 4Food Marketing Institute $10,000 6General Motors Corp. $10,000 9National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 4

Arkansas Bumpers, Dale (D-AR) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $165,857 144National Assoc. of Realtors $10,000 4Georgia-Pacific Corp $8,000 3International Paper Co. $8,000 3Entergy Services, Inc. $7,000 9United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $6,500 5

Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $268,177 265United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $19,000 11Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. $14,500 5National Federation of Independent Business $14,331 9National Assoc. of Realtors $13,500 8National Restaurant Assoc. $10,500 3


28/39

26 Take the Money...And Run.



California Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $78,354 64

American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $12,000 8Federal Express Corp. $7,000 3Genentech, Inc. $7,000 4United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $6,000 7

Joseph E. Sea ram & Sons, Inc. $5,000 2National Assoc. of Realtors $5,000 1Nestle U.S.A. $5,000 1

Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $310,523 182Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc. $24,500 10Bankamerica Corp. $20,250 14American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $16,520 10Northrop Grumman Corp. $16,248 8Federal Express Corp. $15,000 4

Colorado Allard, Wayne (R-CO)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $454,034 497National Federation of Independent Business $22,735 10

National Assoc. of Realtors $20,000 12National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $19,850 12Chevron Corp. $14,100 13Union Pacific Corp. $13,749 18

Campbell, Ben (R-CO) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $246,170 170National Assoc. of Realtors $108,953 8Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $15,500 7Independent Insurance A ents of America, Inc. $10,000 6Amoco Corp. $9,000 8Chevron Corp. $7,800 4

Connecticut Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $277,211 212National Assoc. of Realtors $18,253 7Bankamerica Corp. $15,499 12Federal Express Corp. $15,000 4Chase Manhattan Corp. $14,900 10Aetna, Inc. $14,000 5

Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $289,075 276Northrop Grumman Corp. $13,500 12Federal Express Corp. $10,000 3ITT Hartford Group Inc $10,000 6Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbrid e $10,000 4Textron, Inc. $10,000 6United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $10,000 4United Technolo ies Corp. $10,000 9

Delaware Biden, Joseph (D-DE) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $0 14American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $0 2Chrysler Corp. $0 2National Assoc. of Realtors $0 4United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $0 6

Roth, William (R-DE) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $286,936 261

Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 4General Motors Corp. $10,000 10International Paper Co. $10,000 2du Pont de Nemours & Co., E.I. $9,051 11National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $9,000 3Union Pacific Corp. $9,000 5

Florida Graham, Bob D-FL) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $213,065 237Food Marketin Institute $10,000 4Independent Insurance A ents of America, Inc. $9,999 7

Jim Walter Corp. $9,500 5Holland & Kni ht $9,000 5

Appendix Two, continued.


29/39

27Sierra Club



National Assoc. of Realtors $8,000 7

National Utility Contractors Assoc. $8,000 6

Mack, Connie (R-FL)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $10,700 12Sensormatic Electronics Corp. $1,200 2American Furniture Manufacturers Assoc. $1,000 1Associated Builders & Contractors $1,000 1Chase Manhattan Corp. $1,000 1Colt Industries, Inc. $1,000 1FMC Corp. $1,000 1General Electric Co. $1,000 1National Restaurant Assoc. $1,000 1National Soft Drink Assoc., Inc. $1,000 1Sea-land Service, Inc. (subsidiary) $1,000 1

Georgia Cleland, Max (D-GA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $41,200 37Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbrid e $5,500 2Federal Express Corp. $5,000 2

WMX Technolo ies, Inc. $3,000 2Amoco Corp. $2,000 2BellSouth Corp. $2,000 2Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. $2,000 2Chrysler Corp. $2,000 2Georgia-Pacific Corp $2,000 1Holland & Knight $2,000 3Northrop Grumman Corp. $2,000 2Tyson Foods, Inc. $2,000 2

Coverdell, Paul (R-GA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $323,515 269National Federation of Independent Business $13,492 5Southern Co. $13,000 15United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $12,000 6American Bakers Assoc. $11,000 9Union Pacific Corp. $10,072 5

Hawaii Akaka, Daniel (D-HI) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $56,800 67National Assoc. of Realtors $10,000 9United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $6,000 7American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $5,400 8BHP Hawaii, Inc. $3,500 3Independent Insurance A ents of America, Inc. $3,000 3

Inouye, Daniel (D-HI) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $181,900 146Northrop Grumman Corp. $24,000 13American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $18,500 11General Electric Co. $9,850 5General Motors Corp. $9,000 7Sea-land Service, Inc. (subsidiary) $9,000 8

Idaho Craig, Larry (R-ID) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $359,185 342Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 2Chevron Corp. $10,000 6Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $10,000 4Exxon Co. U.S.A. $10,000 5Food Marketing Institute $10,000 10National Assoc. of Realtors $10,000 8National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 3National Mining Assoc. $10,000 5Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 9

Kempthorne, Dirk (R-ID) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $305,252 264Chevron Corp. $10,000 6FMC Corp. $10,000 4Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 8United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $9,000 8



30/39




International Paper Co. $8,500 3

Illinois Durbin, Richard (D-IL)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $209,513 295National Assoc. of Realtors $16,200 10United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $14,480 22American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $10,350 14Federal Express Corp. $8,000 5General Electric Co. $7,500 9WMX Technologies, Inc. $7,500 7

Moseley-Braun, Carol (D-IL) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $122,925 106Federal Express Corp. $11,000 3WMX Technologies, Inc. $9,800 8Bankamerica Corp. $7,500 6Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $7,500 2American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $7,075 6

Indiana Coats, Dan (R-IN) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $537,324 494

Norfolk Southern Corp. $12,000 9Northrop Grumman Corp. $12,000 14General Motors Corp. $10,500 11Amoco Corp. $10,000 11Associated Builders & Contractors $10,000 2Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 3International Paper Co. $10,000 2National Assoc. of Realtors $10,000 8National Restaurant Assoc. $10,000 5Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 6United Technologies Corp. $10,000 9

Lugar, Richard (R-IN) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $306,620 292Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 4Union Pacific Corp. $9,999 7United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $9,500 9National Assoc. of Realtors $9,000 7

Food Marketing Institute $8,500 8

Iowa Grassley, Charles (R-IA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $329,351 316American Truckin Assoc. $11,789 12National Assoc. of Realtors $10,875 5Union Pacific Corp. $10,750 10Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 2General Motors Corp. $9,000 10

Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $163,201 152Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $9,000 8Raytheon Co. $9,000 7American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $8,000 2Food Marketing Institute $8,000 6United Technologies Corp. $7,500 4

Kansas Brownback, Sam (R-KS)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $284,058 295Union Pacific Corp. $12,000 6National Restaurant Assoc. $11,600 7Koch Industries, Inc. $11,500 5Federal Express Corp. $11,000 7National Federation of Independent Business $10,687 10

Roberts, Pat (R-KS)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $482,189 525National Assoc. of Realtors $23,000 10FMC Corp. $15,000 11Union Pacific Corp. $12,500 14Western Resources $11,750 17Koch Industries, Inc. $10,500 7National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,500 5



31/39

29Sierra Club



Kentucky Ford, Wendell (D-KY) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $327,565 283Ashland, Inc. $10,000 3Federal Express Corp. $10,000 3National Assoc. of Realtors $10,000 5Philip Morris Co.s, Inc. $9,998 8Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $9,810 6

McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $459,871 413Ashland, Inc. $10,000 2Brown-Forman Corp. $10,000 5Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $10,000 7National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 5National Restaurant Assoc. $10,000 7Philip Morris Co.s, Inc. $10,000 6Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 5United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $10,000 2United Technolo ies Corp. $10,000 7

Louisiana Breaux, John (D-LA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $372,517 335National Fisheries Institute $11,250 4Chevron Corp. $11,000 4American Truckin Assoc. $10,000 8International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc. $10,000 4National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 6National Restaurant Assoc. $10,000 2

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $31,500 31BellSouth Corp. $5,000 1United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $5,000 3Amoco Corp. $2,000 2Bankamerica Corp. $2,000 1Chrysler Corp. $2,000 1Entergy Services, Inc. $2,000 3National Fisheries Institute $2,000 1

Maine Collins, Susan (R-ME) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $172,728 116Georgia-Pacific Corp $10,000 2International Paper Co. $10,000 2National Lumber & Buildin Material Dealer Assoc. $7,908 8National Federation of Independent Business $7,600 4Champion International Corp. $6,401 6

Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $379,158 308National Assoc. of Realtors $43,267 11International Paper Co. $20,000 6Associated General Contractors of America $12,750 7International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc. $12,000 5Union Camp Corp. $11,050 5

Maryland Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $186,989 186National Assoc. of Realtors $21,089 7

Westinghouse Electric Corp. $11,500 9General Motors Corp. $11,200 14Northrop Grumman Corp. $10,900 13Boeing Co., The $10,350 9

Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $106,849 83National Assoc. of Realtors $9,999 5Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $9,500 7Westvaco Corp. $8,000 3Federal Express Corp. $7,000 3Westin house Electric Corp. $6,000 4

Massachusetts Kennedy, Edward (D-MA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $1,500 8



32/39




American Trucking Assoc. $1,000 1

Norfolk Southern Corp. $500 1General Electric Co. $0 2Litton Industries, Inc. $0 2Tenneco $0 2

Kerry, John (D-MA) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $1,300 8General Motors Corp. $1,000 1Holland & Knight $1,000 1American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. $300 1Bankamerica Corp. $0 2American International Group, Inc. -$1,000 3

Michigan Abraham, Spencer (R-MI) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $332,331 224National Federation of Independent Business $16,422 8General Motors Corp. $13,000 6National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,500 3Exxon Co. U.S.A. $10,000 2

Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 2

Levin, Carl (D-MI) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $104,456 105General Motors Corp. $11,000 10Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $10,000 4Detroit Edison Co. $9,600 11Chrysler Corp. $8,000 4Consumers Power Co. $7,750 6

Minnesota Grams, Rod (R-MN)* Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $397,729 360National Federation of Independent Business $18,130 9National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $15,000 7Union Pacific Corp. $15,000 9Koch Industries, Inc. $13,000 7Associated General Contractors of America $12,000 5

Wellstone, Paul (D-MN) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $17,078 25

West Publishing Co. $9,428 3Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney... $2,950 4CENEX, Inc. $1,800 3Centocor, Inc. $1,000 1Eastman Kodak Co. $1,000 1

Mississippi Cochran, Thad (R-MS) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $195,301 163BellSouth Corp. $10,000 3International Paper Co. $8,000 3Food Marketin Institute $7,000 4General Motors Corp. $7,000 5American Furniture Manufacturers Assoc. $6,000 3Chevron Corp. $6,000 2Philip Morris Co.s, Inc. $6,000 4

Lott, Trent (R-MS) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $427,329 392American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $13,000 10Federal Express Corp. $13,000 6Sea-land Service, Inc. (subsidiary) $12,000 7Northrop Grumman Corp. $11,000 10International Paper Co. $10,050 7

Missouri Ashcroft, John (R-MO) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $398,101 359Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 2Chevron Corp. $10,000 5Exxon Co. U.S.A. $10,000 6Food Marketin Institute $10,000 8Ford Motor Co. $10,000 17National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 2Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 9



33/39

31Sierra Club



Bond, Christopher (R-MO) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $544,234 541Chase Manhattan Corp. $14,000 11General Motors Corp. $12,000 13Northrop Grumman Corp. $11,000 7Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 2National Assoc. of Realtors $10,000 5Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 7

Montana Baucus, Max (D-MT) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $221,355 218National Assoc. of Convenience Stores $10,000 3National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 3WMX Technologies, Inc. $10,000 7American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $9,000 6American Trucking Assoc. $9,000 8

Burns, Conrad (R-MT) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $580,304 520Associated Builders & Contractors $17,500 6

Federal Express Corp. $16,000 7Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $14,090 10American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $11,000 15BellSouth Corp. $11,000 8General Motors Corp. $11,000 9

Nebraska Hagel, Chuck (R-NE) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $75,266 63Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 2Associated Builders & Contractors $5,000 2Exxon Co. U.S.A. $5,000 2National Assoc. of Convenience Stores $4,000 2Grocery Manufacturers Assoc., Inc. $3,500 3

Kerrey, Bob (D-NE) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $248,536 196American Telephone & Telegraph Co. [AT & T] $12,000 9Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $12,000 4Federal Express Corp. $10,000 4

General Electric Co. $10,000 8Schering Plough Corp. $10,000 3United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $10,000 5

Nevada Bryan, Richard (D-NV) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $188,913 171National Assoc. of Realtors $18,943 7Federal Express Corp. $10,000 6National Beer Wholesalers' Assoc. $10,000 5United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $10,000 7American Telephone & Tele raph Co. [AT & T] $9,500 15

Reid, Harry (D-NV) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $138,594 130Cyprus Amax Minerals Corp. $13,000 5Northrop Grumman Corp. $8,238 8ITT Corp. $8,000 2National Assoc. of Realtors $8,000 6

Jim Walter Corp. $6,000 7

New Hampshire Gregg, Judd (R-NH) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $206,035 171Raytheon Co. $12,250 7Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. $11,500 4United Parcel Service of America, Inc. $10,000 7Exxon Co. U.S.A. $7,500 4WMX Technologies, Inc. $7,000 7

Smith, Robert (R-NH) Total from ARR/Project Relief/AQSC PACs $366,265 337Associated General Contractors of America $10,000 4Northrop Grumman Corp. $10,000 7Union Pacific Corp. $10,000 8National Assoc. of Realtors $9,554 6



34/39


Amount of Number ofTo

take more money and run

Documents