Texas League of Conservation Voters
Scorecard Summary

State Averages

Senate
47%		 House
45%


Texas Senate
Highest Ranking Members
Gonzalo Barrientos – 100%
Eliot Shapleigh – 100%
Carlos Truan – 100%
Mike Moncrief – 89%
Leticia Van de Putte – 89%
Royce West – 89%
Judith Zaffirini – 89%
Lowest Ranking Members
Ken Armbrister – 11%
Teel Bivins – 11%
John Carona – 11%
Robert Duncan – 11%
Tom Haywood – 11%
Steve Ogden – 11%
Todd Staples – 11%


Texas House of Representatives
Highest Ranking Members
Lon Burnam – 100%
Debra Danburg – 100%
Dawnna Dukes – 100%
Scott Hochberg – 100%
Ann Kitchen – 100%
Glen Maxey – 100%
Elliott Naishtat – 100%
Steve Wolens – 100%
Lowest Ranking Members
Leo Berman ­ 0%    Talmadge Heflin ­ 0%
Dennis Bonnen ­ 0%    Fred Hill ­ 0%
Kim Brimer ­ 0%    Suzanna Hupp ­ 0%
Bill Callegari ­ 0%    Carl Isett ­ 0%
Ron Clark ­ 0%    Brian McCall ­ 0%
Joe Crabb ­ 0%    Sid Miller ­ 0%
Dianne Delisi ­ 0%    Anna Mowery ­ 0%
Gary Elkins ­ 0%    Robert Talton ­ 0%


Texas Senate
Votes 1 to 4

Senate Bill 1541
The Senate debated several bills with environmental consequences - one of the most controversial was Senate Bill 1541. This legislation would have allowed West Texas to become a radioactive and hazardous waste dump for private companies. Many attempts at amending it were made during second reading, and four of the votes on this scorecard pertain to this one piece of legislation.

Votes 5 to 7

House Bill 2912
Three of the votes are from debate on House Bill 2912, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) reauthorization bill. This bill was the subject of much debate in both the House and Senate even before the start of the 2001 session and several divisive amendments, namely the creation of a Public Interest Counsel, were introduced on the floors of both the House and Senate.

Votes 8 and 9

House Bill 2518
Finally, two votes are from action on House Bill 2518. This legislation allows for the TNRCC to issue permit amendments during construction without public notice, both an issue for environmental organizations and for those concerned with open government.


Vote 1: Senate Bill 1541

Motion by Sen. Robert Duncan to Bring up Bill for Consideration
This last-minute bill was filed by Sen. Duncan and allowed for radioactive waste dumping in Texas facilities. It was lobbied for heavily by waste disposal companies interested in using Texas as a site for waste from federal clean-up projects and nuclear power. The language of this bill also loaded the liability for these sites onto the residents of Texas.

Many of the bad provisions were removed after a public hearing, only to be added back into the bill by a committee amendment from Sen. Teel Bivins. The bill finally went to the floor.

When Sen. Duncan moved to bring the bill up for consideration on 2nd reading, several Senators tried to block consideration by voting no. The motion prevailed, but was a very close vote.

A vote against the motion to bring up Senate Bill 1531 for consideration was a vote for a clean and safe environment.


Vote 2: Senate Bill 1541

Motion by Sen. Teel Bivins to Table Amendment 1
In an attempt to delete some of the bad provisions added to SB 1541 in committee, Sen. Eliot Shapleigh proposed an amendment that would have removed a provision allowing for waste from nuclear weapons sites to be stored in Texas.

Sen. Bivins motioned to table this amendment and the motion prevailed.

A vote against this motion to table Amendment 1 was a vote for a clean and safe environment.


Vote 3: Senate Bill 1541

Motion by Sen. Robert Duncan to Table Amendment 2
A motion was made by Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, who represents the El Paso area, to exclude locating any of these dump facilities within 62 miles of the Mexico border and in any county that adjoins the Pecos River.

Sen. Duncan moved to table the amendment, but his motion to table failed.

A vote against the motion to table Amendment 2 was a vote for clean water.

Vote 4: Senate Bill 1541

Pass to 3rd Reading
After several amendments were attempted on SB 1541, a vote on passage to the 3rd reading was taken. This was the final opportunity to show opposition to dumping radioactive waste in Texas and 10 Senators voted against moving the bill any further in the legislative process.

A vote against SB 1541 was a vote for clean air and water.


Vote 5: House Bill 2912

Adoption of Amendment 8 by Sen. Tom Haywood
This amendment to the TNRCC reauthorization bill would have lowered the reduction requirements for emissions from pipelines from 30% to 20%. The requirement had been raised to 30% in committee and the higher-percentage reduction was supported by the sponsor of the bill. This amendment was a last-minute attempt to lower the emissions reduction requirements.

The amendment failed adoption and the higher requirements for reductions remained in the bill.

A vote against Amendment 8 was a vote for clean air.


Vote 6: House Bill 2912

Motion by Sen. Chris Harris to Table Amendment 19
The language of HB 2912 stipulated that the TNRCC mission include encouraging economic development in Texas. This requirement was included among policy statements such as protecting public health and environment, protecting aquatic life and maintaining the quality of water. The stipulation that the agency must encourage economic development while simultaneously protecting the environment caused an obvious conflict in the mission.

Sen. Carlos Truan proposed Amendment 19 to remove this requirement for the agency, and a motion was made to table the amendment. The motion to table prevailed.

A vote against the motion to table Amendment 19 was a vote for clean air and water.


Vote 7: House Bill 2912

Adoption of Amendment 26A by Sen. David Bernsen
This amendment was an attempt to close the Grandfather Loophole that existed for many of the highest polluters in Texas. The loophole allowed for older polluters to operate without permits from the TNRCC and contribute more in emissions to the environment than permitted facilities. Sen. Bernsen’s amendment required the permitting of these facilities and increased requirements in pipeline emissions reduction.

The amendment was passed and a victory for the environment.

A vote for Amendment 26A was a vote for clean air and water.


Vote 8: House Bill 2518

Adoption of Amendment 1 by Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos
HB 2518 allows for the TNRCC to grant permit amendments for construction or modification without public hearing or comment. Under this legislation, if the TNRCC deems the facility to be using Best Available Control Technology (BACT), then the agency can grant changes to permits without a public review process.

Sen. Barrientos attempted to amend the bill by offering language that would have required public notice if the facility had not been subject to a hearing within the preceding three months. The amendment was not adopted.

A vote for Amendment 1 was a vote for clean air and water.

Vote 9: House Bill 2518

Third reading and final passage
A motion was made to suspend the rules and consider HB 2518 for third reading. With the failure of the amendment by Barrientos (Vote 8), many Senators voiced objection to this legislation that allows for permitting by the TNRCC without public review or comment.

A record vote was taken and the bill ultimately passed the Senate.

A vote against HB 2518 was a vote for clean air and water.

 

Legend for Scorecard

+ is a positive vote for the environment

- is a negative vote for the environment

AE is Absent Excused

A is Absent

P is Present not Voting

C is Chair

Texas Senate Scorecard

Member
P
Dist
2001
Score
1999
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Armbrister, Ken
D
18
11%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
Barrientos, Gonzalo
D
14
100%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Bernsen, David
D
4
78%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
P
P
Bivins, Teel
R
31
11%
0%
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
Brown, Buster
R
17
33%
0%
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
Cain, David
D
2
33%
13%
-
-
+
-
+
A
+
-
-
Carona, John
R
16
11%
0%
-
-
+
-
-
-
A
-
-
Duncan, Robert
R
28
11%
0%
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ellis, Rodney
D
13
56%
87%
-
+
+
-
+
A
+
+
-
Fraser, Troy
R
24
22%
0%
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
Gallegos, Mario
D
6
56%
100%
-
-
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
Harris, Chris
R
10
40%
13%
AE
AE
AE
AE
+
-
+
-
-
Haywood, Tom
R
30
11%
0%
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jackson, Mike
R
11
22%
13%
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
Lindsay, Jon
R
7
44%
0%
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
A
Lucio, Eddie
D
27
44%
25%
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
+
-
Madla, Frank
D
19
56%
43%
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
Moncrief, Mike
D
12
89%
50%
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
Nelson, Jane
R
9
33%
0%
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
Ogden, Steve
R
5
11%
0%
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ratliff, Bill
R
1
**
0%
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Shapiro, Florence
R
8
22%
0%
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
Shapleigh, Eliot
D
29
100%
88%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Sibley, David
R
22
44%
0%
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
Staples, Todd
R
3
11%
n/a
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
Truan, Carlos
D
20
100%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Van de Putte, Leticia
D
26
89%
n/a
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Wentworth, Jeff
R
25
44%
0%
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
West, Royce
D
23
89%
88%
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
Whitmire, John
D
15
44%
87%
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
+
-
Zaffirini, Judith
D
21
89%
38%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-


Texas House of Representatives

Many of the record votes on the House scorecard spotlight action on two bills – House Bill 2912 and Senate Bill 5.

Votes 1 to 4

House Bill 2912
HB 2912 is the continuing legislation for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The agency was under review by the Sunset Commission prior to the 2001 session and this piece of legislation was an opportunity for both public interest organizations and polluters to change environmental regulations. Votes one to four relate to amendments to HB 2912 that address the creation of a Public Interest Counsel and closing the Grandfather Loophole.


Votes 5 to 8

Senate Bill 5
Senate Bill 5 was filed in response to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) developed by the TNRCC. The Bill was a bi-partisan effort to pass legislation that provides incentives for emissions reduction. Votes five to eight are from a series of amendments where attempts were made to reduce funding for the incentive program by eliminating small fees on automobile inspections.

Vote 9

House Bill 2134
This legislation authorizes auto emissions inspection, maintenance and testing requirements. A key provision in this bill is the requirement for a fund to assist in the retrofitting of older vehicles.

Vote 1: House Bill 2912

Motion by Rep. Fred Bosse to Table Amendment 18
Amendment 18, introduced by Rep. Robert Puente, created an independent Public Interest Counsel office to represent the public interest during hearings and in decisions made by the TNRCC. Similar bodies exist at both the Public Utility Commission and the Texas Department of Insurance. The Office of Public Utility Counsel and the Office of Public Insurance Counsel, respectively, represent the consumer and public interests before those bodies. Many community and environmental organizations supported this amendment hoping to offset the industry representation that has clearly dominated the TNRCC.

A motion to table, made in an attempt to kill the amendment, failed by a narrow margin.

A vote against the motion to table Amendment 18 was a vote for greater public interest representation.


Vote 2: House Bill 2912

Adoption of Amendment 18 by Rep. Robert Puente
After the close vote on the motion to table (Vote 1 above), a vote was taken on the passage of Amendment 18 and the creation of a Public Interest Counsel office. The amendment was adopted, but again it was by a slight margin-just four votes.

A vote for the adoption of Amendment 18 was a vote for greater public representation.

Vote 3: House Bill 2912

Motion by Rep. Zeb Zbranek to Table Amendment 41
After widespread recognition of the failure of prior legislative sessions to address the Grandfather Loophole for emissions, in 2001 Rep. Zeb Zbranek proposed HB 356. The bill would have required the permitting of grandfathered facilities by 2002. Recognizing that the bill was stalled in committee, Rep. Zbranek proposed an amendment to HB 2912 that inserted language to close the Grandfather Loophole.

Rep. Warren Chisum proposed Amendment 41 to modify Rep. Zbranek’s amendment with language favored by industry. A motion was made to table the pro-industry language and that motion failed.

A vote for the motion to table Amendment 41 was a vote for clean air.

Vote 4: HB 2912

Adoption of Amendment 42 by Rep. Pete Gallego
Amendment 42 was an attempt by Rep. Gallego to tighten some of the language proposed by Rep. Chisum (Amendment 41 in Vote 3 above). Specifically, this amendment would have made the standards on emissions from pipelines more stringent. Under the language of Amendment 41, the standards were weak and favorable to the industry.

Adoption of Amendment 42 failed.

A vote for the adoption of Amendment 42 was a vote for clean air.


Vote 5: Senate Bill 5, Amendment 2

Motion by Rep. Steve Wolens to Table Amendment 2
Senate Bill 5 is legislation that provides grants and other incentives for emission reductions under programs managed by the TNRCC. The incentive programs include rewards for investment in cleaner-burning diesel engines, cash rebates for purchasing clean-running cars, and required contributions to a state fund from facilities in areas that do not meet federal clean air standards and SIP requirements. Most of the funds received under the program are to be dedicated for use in air-polluted areas of the state.

Funding for the incentive programs comes from fees established in the legislation: heavy truck registration fees; surcharges on construction equipment when sold or leased; per-ton contribution by the facilities not meeting SIP requirements; and other individual fees for car registration and hotel stays.

During the beginning of debate on second reading, an amendment was offered by Rep. Dennis Bonnen that removed Section 11 from the legislation. This section provided for an additional fee of $5.00 to inspect vehicles registered in air-polluted areas and $1.00 for vehicles in areas with cleaner air. These fees were designated for deposit into the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Fund for use toward incentive programs.

Reduced income into the Fund means less money toward incentives. Representative Wolens moved to table the amendment by Rep. Bonnen. The motion to table failed.

A vote for this motion to table Amendment 2 was a vote for clean air.


Vote 6: Senate Bill 5

Motion by Rep. Dennis Bonnen to Table Amendment 3
When the motion to table the previous amendment failed (Vote 5 above), Rep. Steve Wolens proposed Amendment 3, which changed the language of the bill to reduce the fee from $5.00 to $3.00 for inspection of vehicles registered in air-polluted areas.

Rep. Bonnen moved to table this amendment.

A vote against this motion to table Amendment 3 was a vote for clean air.


Vote 7: Senate Bill 5

Motion by Rep. Dennis Bonnen to Table Amendment 4
Again, upon failing to pass the previous amendment (Vote 6 above), Rep. Steve Wolens made another attempt to retain vehicle inspection fees and proposed Amendment 4, which changed the language of the bill and reduced the fee to just $1.00 for all vehicles.

Rep. Bonnen moved to table this amendment as well.

A vote against this motion to table Amendment 4 was a vote for clean air.

Vote 8: Senate Bill 5, Amendment 5

Motion by Rep. Steve Wolens to Table Amendment 5
Amendment 5, by Rep. Ron Lewis, was an attempt to further remove the funding mechanisms in the Senate Bill. This amendment removed the requirement for hotels to charge a $1.00 fee for deposit into the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Fund.

Records from the House Environmental Regulation Committee on May 1, 2001 show that much of the opposition to this bill came from hotel industry representatives, even as numerous businesses, city and community groups supported the legislation.

The motion to table this amendment failed.

A vote for the motion to table Amendment 5 was a vote for clean air.


Vote 9: House Bill 2134

Sponsored by Rep. Warren Chisum and Sen. Buster Brown
This bill requires the TNRCC to adopt vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance requirements and authorizes a portion of fees charged during inspection to be retained for use as incentives for participation in the testing network. The legislation also requires the TNRCC to use part of the fees to fund the retrofitting of older vehicles, financial assistance for vehicle repairs for low-income persons and vehicle retirement programs.

The bill also requires TNRCC and DPS to develop jointly a field-testing system for enforcing vehicle emissions standards. House Bill 2134 passed the House and Senate and went into effect on September 1, 2001.

A vote for passage of House Bill 2134 was a vote for clean air.

 

Legend for Scorecard

+ is a positive vote for the environment

- is a negative vote for the environment

AE is Absent Excused

A is Absent

P is Present not Voting

C is Chair

Texas House of Representatives Scorecard

Member
P
Dist
2001
Score
1999
Score
1
2
3
4
5*
6*
7*
8*
9
Alexander, Clyde
D
12
20%
20%
-
-
A
-
+
+
+
+
+
Allen, Ray
R
106
29%
40%
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
Averitt, Kip
R
56
25%
40%
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
Bailey, Kevin
D
140
83%
80%
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
+
Berman, Leo
R
6
0%
40%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bonnen, Dennis
R
25
0%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bosse, Fred
D
128
33%
60%
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Brimer, Kim
R
96
00%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Brown, Betty
R
4
17%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
Brown, Fred
R
14
21%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
Burnam, Lon
D
90
100%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Callegari, Bill
R
130
0%
N/A
A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capelo Jr., Jaime
D
34
75%
20%
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
Carter, Bill
R
91
29%
40%
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
Chavez, Norma
D
76
58%
75%
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
Chisum, Warren
R
88
33%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
Christian, Wayne
R
9
17%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
Clark, Ron
R
62
0%
25%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coleman, Garnet
D
147
96%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
Cook, Robert
D
28
33%
20%
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Corte Jr., Frank
R
123
17%
40%
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-
+
Counts, David
D
70
33%
25%
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Crabb, Joe
R
127
0%
20%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Craddick, Tom
R
82
17%
0%
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Crownover, Myra
R
64
17%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Danburg, Debra
D
137
100%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Davis, John
R
129
21%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
Davis, Yvonne
D
111
88%
50%
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
+
Delisi, Dianne
R
55
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Denny, Mary
R
63
17%
20%
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deshotel, Joe
D
22
50%
80%
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
Driver, Joe
R
113
17%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dukes, Dawnna
D
50
100%
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Dunnam, Jim
D
57
71%
60%
+
+
-
+
+
-
-
A
+
Dutton Jr., Harold
D
142
83%
25%
+
+
+
+
-
A
-
-
+
Edwards, Al
D
146
67%
66%
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ehrhardt, Harryette
D
107
83%
100%
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Eiland, Craig
D
24
91%
25%
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
C
+
Elkins, Gary
D
135
0%
40%
-
A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member
P
Dist
2001
Score
1999
Score
1
2
3
4
5*
6*
7*
8*
9
Ellis, Dan
D
18
33%
40%
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
Farabee, David
D
69
67%
60%
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
Farrar, Jessica
D
148

88%
40%
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
Flores, Ismael
D
36
50%
50%
+
+
-
-
 A
A
-
-
+
Gallego, Pete
D
74
71%
60%
+
+
-
+
+
A
-
-
+