The Club for Growth supports more sensible government regulation, and less government regulation overall, as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace. Sen. Brownback's record on regulation is generally pro-growth with just
a few exceptions. He has often demonstrated his respect for the self-regulation of the marketplace and his general aversion to burdensome regulatory measures. These votes include:
Voted for a resolution expressing congressional disapproval of ergonomic rules submitted by the Department of Labor (Roll Call #15, 03/06/01)
Voted against banning drilling in ANWR (Roll Call #52, 03/16/05)
Voted to prohibit an increase in
CAFE standards (Roll Call vote #48, 03/13/02)
Voted against a bill that would require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010 (Roll Call #420, 10/30/03)
Source: Club for Growth, "Second Presidential White Paper"
Feb 2, 2007
Scored 0% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection
The Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard on animal protection issues scored Brownback 0 out of 100, based on:
Brownback did not co-sponsor the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S.1915): To bar slaughtering horses for human consumption. Bill had 3
co-sponsors.
Brownback voted against the Horse Slaughter Amendment (9/20/2005): to stop export of horses for slaughter.
Brownback did not co-sponsor the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act (S.382): To criminalize dogfighting & cockfighting. The bill
had 51 cosponsors & passed unanimously on 4/28/2005.
Brownback did not co-sponsor the Downed Animal Protection Act (S.1779): to ban "downed" (unable to walk to slaughter) cattle, pigs & sheep in human food. Bill had 26 cosponsors.
Brownback did not
sign the Funding Letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee: seeking funds for the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, & federal animal fighting law. The letter was cosigned by 44 senators & sent on 5/25/2006.
Source: Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard, www.fund.org
Jan 31, 2007
Voted YES on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land.
To prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland & grazing land by government for parks, open space, or similar purposes. Exceptions include takings for use by:
public utility
road or other right of way
an aqueduct or pipeline
a prison or hospital
national disaster
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. CRAIG: "Eminent domain was elevated greatly as an issue following a highly controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision known as Kelo vs. The City of New London. Since that decision, we as a nation have allowed state & local governments to utilize eminent domain to force landowners to yield their property to private development. Farmers and ranchers in particular have become vulnerable to state and local governments taking their property for economic development or open space designations. My amendment is a very targeted amendment. It addresses only cases in which private working agricultural land is taken and turned into public open space."
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. HARKIN: This amendment doesn't reach the Kelo decision [because Kelo was about taking open space for private development]. Under this amendment they can still do that.
CRAIG. Oh, I disagree totally. We reach a portion of Kelo that is now most frequently impacting farms and ranches, and that is open space for open space.
HARKIN. The amendment has the Federal Government telling a local government what it can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction.
Letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures & US Conference of Mayors:
"This amendment is not only ill-advised, but it is also unconstitutional [because it] preempts state & local land use laws. The 5th Amendment expressly permits the taking of private property for public use provided just compensation is provided to the owner. The power of eminent domain has always been, and should remain, a state and local power."
Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule:
Limits smokestack emissions in a two-phase program founded on a market based capping system
Calls for the first cap to limit mercury emissions to 38 tons in 2010
Requires the second and final cap to begin in 2018 and stay fix at 15 tons
Reference: EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule;
Bill S J Res 20
; vote number 2005-225
on Sep 13, 2005
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior.
Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. [Ms. Norton generally favors conservative or libertarian stances on the environment.]
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat.
The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. [A YES vote is considered pro-business].
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)54; N)43; NV)3
Reference: Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588;
Bill H.R. 2466
; vote number 1999-272
on Sep 14, 1999
Voted YES on transportation demo projects.
McCain amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1173) would require that funding for demonstration projects be covered by their respective state allocations instead of being funded individually in the transportation bill.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)78; N)22
Reference: McCain Amdt #1726;
Bill S. 1173
; vote number 1998-29
on Mar 12, 1998
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.
Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program [which provides credits to timber companies to offset what they owe the government].
Reference:
Bill HR.2107
; vote number 1997-242
on Sep 17, 1997
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Brownback scores 0% by the LCV on environmental issues
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders.
The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.
