2003-1 vote index

2003 Private PropertyCongressional

Vote Index

League ofPrivate

PropertyVoters

February 2004

108th CongressVO

TE

IN

DE

X

Fifteenth Annual Edition

First Session

DON'TMISSPAGES6 & 7!

2 League of Private Property VotersFebruary 2004

CHAMPIONS AND ENEMIES

A CHAMPION of Property Rights is a score of80% or higher on the LPPV Index.An ENEMY of Property Rights is a score of 20%or lower on the LPPV Index.

Senate:

The Senate was generally supportive. It votedin support of the Healthy Forest Initiative andto repeal the Estate Tax while also rejecting ill-advised proposals to vastly expand federalspending and regulations that would havedamaged private property rights and multipleuse of federal lands.

There were 35 Champions of Property Rights,all Republicans and 35 Enemies of PropertyRights, all Democrats.

House:

The House supported private property rightsand to protect public lands access more oftenthan not. This included votes on bothrecreational and commercial access. It alsoapproved the Healthy Forest Initiative, with itssuperior version prevailing in the House-Senateconference and being signed into law.

There were 192 Champions of Property Rights,including 188 Republicans and DemocratsAlexander (LA), John (LA), Peterson (MN) andStenholm (TX).There were 165 Enemies of Property Rights,including 163 Democrats and RepublicansLeach(IA) and Shays (CT).

The League of Private Property Voters

2003 Private PropertyCongressional Vote Index

Fifteenth Annual Private Property Congressional Vote Index • February 2004

PO BOX 423 • BATTLE GROUND WA 98604 • PHONE 360-687-2471 • FAX 360-687-2973 • EMAIL [email protected]

The 2003 Private Property Congressional Vote Index is created and published by The League of Private Property Voters, PO Box 423, Battle Ground,Washington 98604; phone (360) 687-2471; fax (360) 687-2973; E-mail [email protected] © 2003 LPPV. Permission is hereby given to reprint this Index, in full or in part, providedcredit is given to LPPV. Editors: Chuck Cushman and Mike Hardiman.

INTRODUCTION

This is the fifteenth annual edition of thePrivate Property Congressional Vote Index.The League of Private Property Voters (LPPV)has published the Index each year since 1989.

LPPV is a coalition of more than 600 grassrootsorganizations that advocate the rights ofproperty owners, including farmers, ranchers,woodlot owners, residents of rural communities,owners of recreational property, and inholdersof private property located within and adjacentto federal lands. It also includes cabinpermittees, off-road vehicle owners,equestrians, snowmobilers, hunters andrecreational shooters, and livestock grazers,foresters and miners who make productive useof federal lands.

Votes for this year’s Index were chosen fromdiscussions among approximately twenty fiveleaders of the Wise Use movement nationwide.These votes represent 2003’s most importantsnapshots demonstrating protection of theconstitutional rights of property owners againsta powerful and overbearing federal government.They also show support for recreational andcommercial access for federal lands, uponwhich many rural communities depend and allAmericans share.

We encourage readers to examine the votingrecords of their Senators and Members ofCongress. Please thank those that stood up forus, and educate the rest.

- The Editors

3League of Private Property Voters February 2004

PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX

QUOTE OF THE YEAR:

“It took a while for some people to reallyunderstand Hillary Clinton’s brilliance. Wehad to find a place for her, she is that good.”

- Nevada Senator Harry Reid, gushing to theWashington Post newspaper on March 5, 2003.Hey Nevada! Does Harry Reid represent yourviews???

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND RELIGION:

“I was raised Episcopalian, and I ended up asa Congregationalist. I had a big fight with alocal Episcopal church over a bike path. Wewere trying to get the bike path built. They hadcontrol of a mile and a half of railroad bed, anddecided they would pursue a property rightssuit to refuse to allow the bike path to bedeveloped.”

- Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean,quoted in the Washington Post newspaper,September 21, 2003.

THE TERRIFIC TWENTY SEVEN

Congressmen Wally Herger (R-CA) and StevePearce (R-NM) teamed up last year to lead thecharge for private property rights at a criticalmoment. The Nature Conservancy and otherpowerful Land Trusts attempted to grab abillion dollar tax cut deal for themselves late in2003. This would have placed them at a hugeadvantage over private property owners inbuying and selling real estate - see excerpts ofletter below, sent to Ways and Means CommitteeChairman Rep. Bill Thomas, for details.

Herger, a senior member of the Ways andMeans Committee, which has jurisdiction overtax policy, joined with freshman Pearce androunded up twenty five other members to sign

the following letter. The special Land Trustprovision was stripped out of the bill in theHouse, but is still alive in the Senate as ofFebruary 2004.

November 7, 2003

Dear Chairman Thomas,

We very strongly oppose language included inS. 476, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003,which gives an unfair advantage to conservationgroups over other non-profit groups and theprivate sector. It provides an alarming incentiveto remove private lands and water rights fromindividuals and potentially place them intofederal ownership. This is in directcontravention of some of our most closely heldprinciples committed to private property rights,free enterprise and smaller government.

The Senate proposal would provide a capitalgains tax reduction of 25% to sellers of propertyor water rights — but only if they sell toconservation groups. They may be pushing fora 50% capital gains reduction, which the JointCommittee on Taxation estimates will costabout a billion dollars over ten years.

We believe the Charitable Giving Act is intendedto encourage and benefit faith-basedinstitutions in their efforts to extend socialservices to the general public. Yet incredibly,this proposal would place those very faith-based institutions, such as churches,orphanages and private schools, at acomparative disadvantage in propertypurchases compared to some conservationgroups and government agencies, which donot perform charitable acts.

The provisions in the Senate bill will do virtuallynothing to benefit sellers of land, since thebeneficiaries of this tax break will be able toreduce their offering price versus any other


potential buyer. Any tax break will result in areduced sale price. Even worse, this proposalwill likely discourage purchase offers fromparties who do not receive this tax break, sinceall others will have to offer a premium price justto stay even.

Tax exempt “non-profits” already havesignificant advantages over private parties inthe tax code. Some have grown into multi-billion dollar multinational corporations witheconomic power greater than nearly anyindividual or organization who may also wantto purchase the same property. Our concernsabout the impacts of this conservation taxcredit are so strong and relate so fundamentallyto the principles we stand for that we wouldhave to reconsider our support for the bill if thisunnecessary, expensive and damaging proposalis included in the Conference Report.

Sincerely,

Rep. Todd Akin, MissouriRep. Roscoe Bartlett, MarylandRep. Rob Bishop, UtahRep. Kevin Brady, TexasRep. Chris Cannon, UtahRep. John Doolittle, CaliforniaRep. Trent Franks, ArizonaRep. Elton Gallegly, CaliforniaRep. Scott Garrett, New JerseyRep. Jim Gibbons, NevadaRep. Sam Graves, MissouriRep. Jeb Hensarling, TexasRep. Wally Herger, CaliforniaRep. John Hostettler, IndianaRep. Duncan Hunter, CaliforniaRep. Walter Jones, North CarolinaRep. Steve King, IowaRep. Gary Miller, CaliforniaRep. Doug Ose, CaliforniaRep. Butch Otter, IdahoRep. Steve Pearce, New MexicoRep. Richard Pombo, California


Rep. John Shadegg, ArizonaRep. Charlie Taylor, North CarolinaRep. Lee Terry, NebraskaRep. Mac Thornberry, TexasRep. Greg Walden, Oregon

THE FABULOUS FORTY

Congressmen Richard Pombo (R-CA) andCharles Stenholm (D-TX) joined forces to senda letter with thirty nine others (excerpts below)to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.Pombo is Chairman of the ResourcesCommittee and Stenholm is the top rankingDemocrat on the Agriculture Committee. Theletter supports reasonable wetlands regulationsand enforcement of the landmark SupremeCourt decision, Solid Waste Agency of NorthernCook County (SWANCC) v. United States ArmyCorps of Engineers - the SWANCC decision.

April 16, 2003

Dear Mr. Card,

On January 9, 2001 the U. S. Supreme CourtSWANCC decision overturned the decisions oflower courts that have tried to expand federaljurisdiction under the Clean Water Act beyond“navigable waters” to include isolated wetlandsthat do not even have a surface connection to“navigable waters.” Furthermore, the Courtstated Congress chose to preserve the primaryrole of the states in planning the developmentand use of land and water resources becauseto do so would impinge on traditional authoritiesof the states.

To allow regulators and private landowners tounderstand the scope of Clean Water Actjurisdiction, it is imperative that rulemakingclearly and concisely define specific termssuch as “isolated,” “tributary,” “adjacent,”“impoundment” and “ordinary high water


mark.” Since these terms presently are eithervague or undefined, regulators in the fieldhave vast discretion to define them in anarbitrary and inconsistent manner. This allowsregulators to continue asserting federaljurisdiction over otherwise isolated waters suchas vernal pools and other features such aserosion ruts and roadside ditches.

These regulations are especially onerous tosmall landowners who do not have the timeand money to challenge the sometimes heavy-handedness of federal wetlands regulators.The 404 wetlands permit process is very timeconsuming and expensive. Obtaining anindividual permit takes on average 788 days ata cost of $271,000.

It is vital that the Administration move quicklywith rules that clearly explain the scope offederal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Sincerely,

Rep. Todd Akin, MissouriRep. Richard Baker, LouisianaRep. Gresham Barrett, South CarolinaRep. Marion Berry, ArkansasRep. Rob Bishop, UtahRep. Allen Boyd, FloridaRep. Sanford Bishop, GeorgiaRep. Chris Cannon, UtahRep. Dennis Cardoza, CaliforniaRep. Jo Ann Davis, VirginiaRep. John Doolittle, CaliforniaRep. John Duncan, TennesseeRep. Jo Ann Emerson, MissouriRep. Sam Graves, MissouriRep. Walter Jones, North CarolinaRep. Robin Hayes, North CarolinaRep. Melissa Hart, PennsylvaniaRep. Wally Herger, CaliforniaRep. Duncan Hunter, CaliforniaRep. Scott McInnis, ColoradoRep. Steve King, Iowa


Rep. Jack Kingston, GeorgiaRep. Jerry Moran, KansasRep. Charlie Norwood, GeorgiaRep. Butch Otter, IdahoRep. Ron Paul, TexasRep. Steve Pearce, New MexicoRep. Collin Peterson, MinnesotaRep. John Peterson, PennsylvaniaRep. Chip Pickering, MississippiRep. Richard Pombo, CaliforniaRep. Mike Ross, GeorgiaRep. Max Sandlin, TexasRep. Edward Schrock, VirginiaRep. Bill Shuster, PennsylvaniaRep. Charles Stenholm, TexasRep. Billy Tauzin, LouisianaRep. Jim Turner, TexasRep. Roger Wicker, MississippiRep. Don Young, Alaska

SIX SPECIAL SENATORS

Six Senators deserve special recognition fortheir efforts to protect private property rightsagainst a legilative attack from the LandGrabbing Land Trusts. Senators Don Nickles(R-OK), Mike Crapo and Larry Craig (bothR-ID), and Mike Enzi and Craig Thomas (bothR-WY) led the charge to strip out of S.476 (Vote#3 on the Senate Scorecard) a billion dollar taxbreak for gigantic multinational Land Trustssuch as The Nature Conservancy. Senator TimJohnson of South Dakota was the loneDemocrat to support private property rights onthis vote.

In recognition of support for Private Property R

ights

and the W

ise Use of Federal L

ands in the 2003

Private P

roperty C

ongressional V

ote Index

Representative

Richard P

ombo

CHAM

PION

of P

rivate Property R

ights

as a

Recognizes

Charles S

. Cushman, Chairman

In

re

co

gn

itio

n

of

a

ch

iev

ing

0

%o

n

th

e

20

03

P

riv

ate

P

rop

ert

y

Co

ng

ress

ion

al

Vo

te

In

de

x

eN

eM

Ye

Ne

MY

of

Pri

va

te P

rop

ert

y R

igh

tso

f P

riv

ate

P

rop

ert

y R

igh

ts

Se

na

tor

Se

na

tor

Joh

n K

err

yJo

hn

Ke

rry

as

a

n

de

cla

res

Chuck C

ushm

an, Chairm

an


UNITED STATES SENATEThe votes listed on the scorecard show how each Senator supported (+) or opposed (-) the

League of Private Property Voters position. A description of each vote is listed below.You will gain the greatest benefit by first looking up your Senator to see what his or her

private property score was on the scorecard. Then read each vote description. The League'sprivate property position listed near the top of the scorecard shows how we believe your Senatorshould have voted on each issue. Check to see whether your Senator supported (+) or opposed(-) the League's private property position.

US SENATE VOTES

#1 - REPEAL DEATH TAX — Senate Vote62 - S Con Res 23: Fiscal 2004 BudgetResolution - Estate Tax RepealMarch 20, 2003 - Kyl, R-Ariz., amendmentthat would accelerate repeal of the estate taxfrom 2010 to 2009. Adopted 51-48: R 47-4;D 4-43; I 0-1. LPPV POSITION: YES.

#2 - ENVIRO PORK PROJECTS — SenateVote 96 - S Con Res 23: Fiscal 2004 BudgetResolution - Environmental andConservation ProgramsMarch 25, 2003 - Corzine, D-N.J., amendmentthat would increase spending on environmentalpork projects by $1.1 billion in fiscal 2004 and$12.4 billion over 10 years. The spendingwould be offset by a reduction in tax cuts.Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0. LPPVPOSITION: NO.

#3 - LAND TRUST TAX BREAK — SenateVote 127 - S 476: Sales of Land and WaterRightsApril 09, 2003 – Grassley, R-Iowa, motion totable (kill) the Nickles, R-Okla., amendment.Senator Nickles amendment would haveeliminated the special deal land trusts carvedout for themselves in S 476 – sellers of land geta tax break - ONLY if they sell to land trusts! Itallows land trusts to lower their offers to buyland and hurts churches, other non-profitsand private parties. Motion agreed to 62-38:R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0. LPPV POSITION: NO.LPPV DOUBLE SCORED.

#4 - REDUCE LEGAL BARRIERS TOTIIMBER SALES — Senate Vote 359 - HR2691: Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations -Judicial Review of Timber SalesSeptember 23, 2003 - Stevens, R-Alaska,motion to table (kill) the Boxer, D-Calif.,amendment that would strike a section in thebill that would provide for an expedited judicialreview process for cases involving timberharvesting in the Tongass National Forest.Motion agreed to 52-44: R 46-5; D 6-38; I 0-1.LPPV POSITION: YES.

#5 - REDUCE LEGAL BARRIERS TOFOREST THINNING — Senate Vote 423 - HR1904: Forest Thinning - Judicial ReviewOctober 30, 2003 - Cochran, R-Miss., motionto table (kill) the Leahy, D-Vt., amendment no.2039 that would strike sections in the bill thatdeal with administrative and judicial reviews.Leahy amendment would have greatlyincreased court delays. Motion agreed to 62-33: R 51-0; D 11-32; I 0-1. LPPV POSITION:YES.

#6 - PROTECT RURAL AREAS WITHFOREST THINNING — Senate Vote 424 -HR 1904: Forest Thinning - Fire ReductionProject FundsOctober 30, 2003 - Crapo, R-Idaho, motion totable (kill) the Boxer, D-Calif., amendment no.2043 that would increase the percentage offunds used to reduce fire danger close to at-risk communities from 50 percent to 70 percent.



A Sierra Club View of the United States

This was an attempt by Senator Boxer toprotect urban interface only, reducing fireprotection for rural areas. Motion agreed to 61-34: R 50-1; D 11-32; I 0-1. LPPV POSITION:YES.

#7 - REDUCE DELAYS FOR FORESTTHINNING — Senate Vote 426 - HR 1904:Forest Thinning - Environmental ImpactStatementsOctober 30, 2003 - Crapo, R-Idaho, motion totable (kill) the Cantwell, D-Wash., amendmentthat would require the Comptroller General tostudy the costs and benefits of the analysis ofalternatives in environmental assessments andenvironmental impact statements. Cantwellamendment would have required more studies

before forest management could begin. It wasintended to delay forest protection measures.Motion agreed to 57-34: R 46-3; D 11-30: I 0-1. LPPV POSITION: YES.

#8 - FARMLAND LAND GRAB — SenateVote 442 - HR 2673: Fiscal 2004 AgricultureAppropriations - Conservation ReserveProgramNovember 06, 2003 - Leahy, D-Vt., amendmentno. 2119 that would bar the AgricultureDepartment from apportioning funds madeavailable from other conservation programs tofund technical assistance for the ConservationReserve Program. Rejected 38-56: R 10-39; D27-17; I 1-0. LPPV POSITION: NO.


SENATE SCORECARD

AlabamaSessions, J. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Shelby (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

AlaskaMurkowski, L. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Stevens (R ) 78% + + - + + + + +

ArizonaKyl (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +McCain (R ) 67% - + - + + + + +

ArkansasLincoln (D ) 56% + - - - + + + +Pryor (D ) 44% - - - - + + + +

CaliforniaBoxer (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +Feinstein (D ) 44% - - - - + + + +

ColoradoAllard (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Campbell (R ) 89% + + + + + + + X

ConnecticutDodd (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Lieberman (D ) 0% - - - X X X X X

DelawareBiden (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Carper (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

FloridaGraham, B. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Nelson, Bill (D ) 11% + - - - - - - -

GeorgiaChambliss (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Miller, Z. (D ) 44% X X - + + + + X

HawaiiAkaka (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Inouye (D ) 22% - - - + - - - +

IdahoCraig (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Crapo (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

IllinoisDurbin (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +Fitzgerald (R ) 78% + + + - + + + -

SENATE KEY+ Supported Private Property position- Opposed Private Property positionX Did not vote (counts as negative)I Ineligible to vote at the time

RE

PE

AL

DE

ATH

TA

XE

NV

IRO

PO

RK

PR

OJE

CTS

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO T

IMB

ER

SA

LES

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

PR

OTE

CT

RU

RA

L A

RE

AS

WIT

H F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

RE

DU

CE

DE

LAY

S F

OR

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

FAR

MLA

ND

LA

ND

GR

AB

% AGREEDALL VOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SENATOR LPPV POSITION: Y N N Y Y Y Y N

LAN

D T

RU

ST

TAX

BR

EA

K

DO

UB

LE S

CO

RE

D



IndianaBayh (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +Lugar (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

Iowa Grassley (R ) 78% + + - + + + + +Harkin (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +

KansasBrownback (R ) 78% + + - + + + + +Roberts (R ) 78% + + - + + + + +

KentuckyBunning (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +McConnell (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

LouisianaBreaux (D ) 44% - + - + + - + -Landrieu (D ) 44% - - - + + + + -

MaineCollins, S. (R ) 44% - + - - + + + -Snowe (R ) 44% - + - - + + + -

MarylandMikulski (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Sarbanes (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

MassachusettsKennedy, E. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Kerry, J. (D ) 0% - - - - X X X -

MichiganLevin, C. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Stabenow (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

MinnesotaColeman (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Dayton (D ) 44% - - - - + + + +

MississippiCochran (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Lott (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

Missour iBond (R ) 89% + + + + + + X +Talent (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

MontanaBaucus, M. (D ) 56% - + - - + + + +Burns, C. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +


RE

PE

AL

DE

ATH

TA

XE

NV

IRO

PO

RK

PR

OJE

CTS

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO T

IMB

ER

SA

LES

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

PR

OTE

CT

RU

RA

L A

RE

AS

WIT

H F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

RE

DU

CE

DE

LAY

S F

OR

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

FAR

MLA

ND

LA

ND

GR

AB



LAN

D T

RU

ST

TAX

BR

EA

K

DO

UB

LE S

CO

RE

D



NebraskaHagel (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Nelson, Ben (D ) 33% + - - + X X X +

NevadaEnsign (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Reid, H. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

New HampshireGregg (R ) 44% + + - + + - - -Sununu (R ) 67% + + - + + + + X

New JerseyCorzine (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Lautenberg (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

New MexicoBingaman (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Domenici (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

New YorkClinton (D ) 0% - - - - - - X -Schumer (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

North CarolinaDole (R ) 89% + + + + + + + -Edwards, J. (D ) 0% - - - X X X X X

North DakotaConrad (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +Dorgan (D ) 22% - - - + - - - +

OhioDeWine (R ) 56% + + - + + + - -Voinovich (R ) 67% + + - + + + + -

OklahomaInhofe (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Nickles (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

OregonSmith, G. (R ) 78% + + - + + + + +Wyden (D ) 44% + - - - + + + -

PennsylvaniaSantorum (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Specter (R ) 67% + + + - + + - -

Rhode IslandChafee (R ) 33% - - - - + + + -Reed, J. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -


RE

PE

AL

DE

ATH

TA

XE

NV

IRO

PO

RK

PR

OJE

CTS

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO T

IMB

ER

SA

LES

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

PR

OTE

CT

RU

RA

L A

RE

AS

WIT

H F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

RE

DU

CE

DE

LAY

S F

OR

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

FAR

MLA

ND

LA

ND

GR

AB



LAN

D T

RU

ST

TAX

BR

EA

K

DO

UB

LE S

CO

RE

D



South CarolinaGraham, L. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Hollings (D ) 1 0% - - - - X X X -

South DakotaDaschle (D ) 44% - - - - + + + +Johnson, Tim (D ) 67% - - + - + + + +

TennesseeAlexander, L. (R ) 78% + + - + + + + +Frist (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

TexasCornyn (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Hutchison, K. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

UtahBennett (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Hatch (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +

VermontJeffords (I ) 0% - - - - - - - -Leahy (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

VirginiaAllen, G. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +Warner (R ) 89% + + + + + + X +

WashingtonCantwell (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Murray (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -

West VirginiaByrd (D ) 0% - - - - - - - -Rockefeller (D ) 11% - - - - - + X -

WisconsinFeingold (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +Kohl (D ) 11% - - - - - - - +

WyomingEnzi (R ) 89% + + + + + + + -Thomas, C. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + +


RE

PE

AL

DE

ATH

TA

XE

NV

IRO

PO

RK

PR

OJE

CTS

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO T

IMB

ER

SA

LES

RE

DU

CE

LE

GA

L B

AR

RIE

RS

TO F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

PR

OTE

CT

RU

RA

L A

RE

AS

WIT

H F

OR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

RE

DU

CE

DE

LAY

S F

OR

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

FAR

MLA

ND

LA

ND

GR

AB



LAN

D T

RU

ST

TAX

BR

EA

K

DO

UB

LE S

CO

RE

D


UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESThe votes listed below show how each Representative supported (+) or opposed (-) the

League of Private Property Voters position. A description of each vote is listed below.You will gain the greatest benefit by first looking up your Representative to see what his

or her private property score was on the scorecard. Then read each vote description. TheLeague's private property position listed near the top of the scorecard shows how we believe yourRepresentative should have voted on each issue. Check to see whether your Representativesupported (+) or opposed (-) the League's private property position.

US HOUSE VOTES#1 - PERMIT ANWR ENERGY EXPLORATION— House Vote 134 - HR 6: Energy Plan -ANWRApril 10, 2003 - Wilson, R-N.M., amendmentthat would open up ANWR (Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge) with reasonable environmentalprotections. Adopted 226-202: R 196-30;D 30-171; I 0-1. LPPV POSITION: YES.

#2 - RAISE TAXES FOR OIL EXPLORATION— House Vote 142 - HR 6: Energy Plan -Royalty PaymentsApril 11, 2003 - Kind, D-Wis., amendment thatwould strike provisions that reduce royaltypayments on oil and gas leases. Rejected 171-251: R 9-214; D 161-37; I 1-0. LPPV POSITION:NO.

#3 - RESTRICT RURAL FOREST THINNING— House Vote 198 - HR 1904: ForestThinning - Democratic SubstituteMay 20, 2003 - Miller, D-Calif., substituteamendment that would allow forest thinningprojects without environmental reviews withinone-half mile of urban areas and on landlocated near municipal water supplies. Otherforest thinning activities would be subject tothe requirements of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act. Rep. Miller was attempting to limitforest management to “urban interface” areasonly, leaving rural areas exposed to furtherdevastating wildfires. Rejected 184-239: R 11-214; D 172-25; I 1-0. LPPV POSITION: NO.

#4 - INCREASE LEGAL DELAYS FORFOREST THINNING — House Vote 199 - HR1904: Forest Thinning – RecommitMay 20, 2003 - Udall, D-N.M., motion toincrease legal roadblocks to forest managementin the Healthy Forest Initiative. It would haveeliminated provisions that would speed upjudicial review of court decisions that challengewildfire prevention projects, and would requirea court considering a request for an injunctionagainst an agency action to give special weightto agency findings that the action is necessaryto avoid long term harm to the ecosystem.Motion rejected 176-250: R 0-226; D 175-24;I 1-0. LPPV POSITION: NO.

#5 - REPEAL DEATH TAX — House Vote288 - HR 8: Estate Tax Repeal - PassageJune 18, 2003 - Passage of the bill that wouldmake permanent the repeal of the estate taxcontained in the 2001 tax cut law (PL 107-16)and which is set to expire after 2010. Passed264-163: R 223-4; D 41-158; I 0-1. Note: A“yea” was a vote in support of the president’sposition. LPPV POSITION: YES.

#6 - LIMIT FUNDS TO UINITED NATIONS— House Vote 365 - HR 1950: StateDepartment Authorization - Cap on U.N.ContributionsJuly 15, 2003 - King, R-Iowa, amendment thatwould cap the U.S. contribution to the U.N.regular budget to no more than the amountpaid by any other permanent member of theSecurity Council. Amendment would havehelped limit the UN from imposing internationalzoning designations. Rejected 187-237:R 173-50; D 14-186; I 0-1. LPPV POSITION:YES.



#7 - ELIMINATE KLAMATH BASIN FARMING— House Vote 380 - HR 2691: Fiscal 2004Interior Appropriations - Klamath WildlifeRefugeJuly 17, 2003 - Blumenauer, D-Ore.,amendment that would bar funds from beingused to enter into new agricultural leases thatallow growing row crops or alfalfa in Oregon’sand California’s Lower Klamath and Tule LakeNational Wildlife Refuges. Rep. Blumenauerwas striking a blow against Klamath Basinfarmers. Rejected 197-228: R 20-205; D 176-23; I 1-0. LPPV POSITION: NO.

#8 - CUT LAND GRABS, MORE FIREFIGHTING — House Vote 381 - HR 2691:Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations -Additional Firefighting FundsJuly 17, 2003 - Shadegg, R-Ariz., amendmentthat would provide an additional $19 million inForest Service firefighting funds and offset thecost with a reduction in funds for landacquisition. Rejected 128-298: R 119-107;D 9-190; I 0-1. LPPV POSITION: YES.

#9 - ELIMINATE SNOWMOBILES INYELLOWSTONE — House Vote 385 - HR2691: Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations -Snowmobiles in Yellowstone and GrandTeton ParksJuly 17, 2003 - Holt, D-N.J., amendment thatwould block funds from being used to doanything inconsistent with the phase out ofrecreational snowmobile use in Yellowstoneand Grand Teton National Parks. Rejected210-210: R 25-194; D 185-15; I 0-1. LPPVPOSITION: NO.

#10 - CODIFY ROADLESS PUBLIC LOCKUP— House Vote 386 - HR 2691: Fiscal 2004Interior Appropriations - Roadless LandsJuly 17, 2003 - Inslee, D-Wash., amendmentthat would prohibit funds from being used tochange the Clinton Roadless Area Conservation

Rule closing thousands of miles of roads andmillions of acres. A “nay” vote was a vote insupport of the president’s position. Rejected185-234: R 20-200; D 164-34; I 1-0. LPPVPOSITION: NO.

#11 - RS 2477 PUBLIC LANDS ACCESSROADS — House Vote 388 - HR 2691: Fiscal2004 Interior Appropriations - Rights-of-Way on Public LandsJuly 17, 2003 - Taylor, R-N.C., amendment tothe Udall, D-Colo., amendment. The Tayloramendment would permit “disclaimers ofinterest,” which allow the Bureau of LandManagement to grant local governmentsrights-of-way on public lands withoutcongressional approval, in national monument,park and wilderness areas. The Udallamendment would prohibit funds from beingused to carry out disclaimers of interest.Adopted 226-194: R 206-14; D 20-179; I 0-1.LPPV POSITION: YES.

#12 - CHEROKEE INDIAN LAND EXCHANGE— House Vote 512 - HR 1409: Indian LandExchange – PassageSeptember 23, 2003 - Renzi, R-Ariz., motion tosuspend the rules and pass the bill that wouldallow for a land exchange between the federalgovernment and the Cherokee Indian tribe inGreat Smoky Mountains National Park in NorthCarolina. The government would receive 218acres of private land and the Cherokee Indianswould receive 143 acres of land in the park.The land would be used for a new CherokeeIndian school and campus. Motion agreed to288-127: R 216-4; D 72-122; I 0-1. LPPVPOSITION: YES.


HOUSE SCORECARD

Alabama4 Aderholt (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +6 Bachus, S. (R ) 83% + + + + + + + - - + + +1 Bonner (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +5 Cramer (D ) 75% + + + + + + - - - + + +7 Davis, A. (D ) 33% - + + - - - - - - + - +2 Everett (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Rogers, Mike D. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

AlaskaAL Young, D. (R ) 92% + X + + + + + + + + + +

Arizona6 Flake (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +2 Franks, T. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +7 Grijalva (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Hayworth (R ) 92% + + + + + X + + + + + +8 Kolbe (R ) 92% + + + + + - + + + + + +4 Pastor (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - X1 Renzi (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Shadegg (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

Arkansas1 Berry (D ) 67% + + + + + - - - + + + -3 Boozman (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +4 Ross (D ) 58% + + + + + - - - - + + -2 Snyder (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

California43 Baca (D ) 42% + + - - - - + - - + - +31 Becerra (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +28 Berman (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - X X X -45 Bono (R ) 75% + + + + + - + - - + + +44 Calvert (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +23 Capps (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -18 Cardoza (D ) 50% - + - + + - + - - + - +48 Cox (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +50 Cunningham (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +53 Davis, S. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -20 Dooley (D ) 50% + + - + + - + - - - - +

4 Doolittle (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +26 Dreier (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +14 Eshoo (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -17 Farr (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -51 Filner (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -24 Gallegly (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +36 Harman (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 Herger (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +15 Honda (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +52 Hunter (R ) 92% + + + + + + + + + + + X49 Issa (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +12 Lantos (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 Lee (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -41 Lewis, Jerry (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +16 Lofgren (D ) 0% - - - - X - - - - - - -

5 Matsui (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +25 McKeon (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +37 Millender-McDonald (D ) 0% - - - - - X X X X X X -7 Miller, George (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

42 Miller, Gary (R ) 75% + + X X + + + - + + + +

HOUSE KEY+ Supported Private Property position- Opposed Private Property positionX Did not vote (counts as negative)I Ineligible to vote at the time

% AGREED

ALL VOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12REPRESENTATIVE LPPV POSITION: Y N N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y

PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE


PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEXX

California (Continued)38 Napolitano (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -21 Nunes (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +

3 Ose (R ) 92% + + + + + - + + + + + +8 Pelosi (D ) 0% - - - - - - X X - - - -

11 Pombo (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +19 Radanovich (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +46 Rohrabacher (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +34 Roybal-Allard (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -40 Royce (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +39 Sanchez, Linda (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +47 Sanchez, Loretta (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -29 Schiff (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -27 Sherman (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -32 Solis (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -13 Stark (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -10 Tauscher (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -22 Thomas, B. (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +

1 Thompson, M. (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -35 Waters (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +33 Watson (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +30 Waxman (D ) 0% - X - - - - - - - - - -

6 Woolsey (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - XColorado

7 Beauprez (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +1 DeGette (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Hefley (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 McInnis (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 Musgrave (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +6 Tancredo (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +2 Udall, M. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

Connecticut3 DeLauro (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Johnson, N. (R ) 33% - + + + - X - - - - - +1 Larson, J. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +4 Shays (R ) 17% - - - + + - - - - - - -2 Simmons (R ) 33% - + - + + - - - - - - +

DelawareAL Castle (R ) 58% - + + + + - + - - - + +

Florida9 Bilirakis (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +2 Boyd (D ) 50% + + + + - - - - - + + -3 Brown, C. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +5 Brown-Waite (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 Crenshaw (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

11 Davis, Jim (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -20 Deutsch (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -25 Diaz-Balart, M. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +21 Diaz-Balart, L. (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +24 Feeney (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +16 Foley (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +14 Goss (R ) 75% + + + + + - + - - + + +13 Harris (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +23 Hastings, A. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

8 Keller (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +17 Meek, K. (D ) 17% - - - - - - + - - - - +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



Florida (Continued)7 Mica (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +1 Miller, J. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

12 Putnam (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +18 Ros-Lehtinen (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +22 Shaw (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

6 Stearns (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +15 Weldon, D. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +19 Wexler (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -10 Young, C.W. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

Georgia2 Bishop, S. (D ) 50% + + + - + - + - - + - -

12 Burns, M. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +8 Collins, M. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

10 Deal (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +11 Gingrey (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

6 Isakson (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +1 Kingston (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +5 Lewis, John (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - X7 Linder (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 Majette (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -3 Marshall (D ) 42% + - + + - - - - - - + +9 Norwood (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

13 Scott, D. (D ) 58% - + + + + - + + - - - +Hawaii

1 Abercrombie (D ) 33% + - - - + - - - - + - +2 Case (D ) 8% - - X - - - - - - - - +

Idaho1 Otter (R ) 92% + + + + + + + + + + + X2 Simpson (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

Illinois13 Biggert (R ) 67% + + + + + - + - - - + +12 Costello (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -

8 Crane (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +7 Davis, D. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Emanuel (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

17 Evans (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - X X -4 Gutierrez (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Hastert (R ) SPEAKER N/A X X X X + X X X X X X X6 Hyde (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +2 Jackson, J. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

15 Johnson, Timothy (R ) 25% - - - + + - - - - - - +10 Kirk (R ) 33% - - - + + - + - - - - +18 LaHood (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

3 Lipinski (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - + - - -16 Manzullo (R ) 83% + + X + + + + - + + + +

1 Rush (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -9 Schakowsky (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

19 Shimkus (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +11 Weller (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +

Indiana5 Burton (R ) 92% + + + + + + - + + + + +4 Buyer (R ) 92% + + + + + + X + + + + +7 Carson, J. (D ) 8% - - - - X - - - - - - +2 Chocola (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



Indiana (Continued)9 Hill (D ) 8% - + - - - - - - - - - -8 Hostettler (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +6 Pence (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Souder (R ) 92% + + + + + + + + X + + +1 Visclosky (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

Iowa3 Boswell (D ) 25% - - X X + - - - - + - +5 King, S. (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +4 Latham (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +2 Leach (R ) 17% - - - + - - - - - - - +1 Nussle (R ) 83% + + + X + + + - + + + +

Kansas3 Moore (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -1 Moran, Jerry (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +2 Ryun, J. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 Tiahrt (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

Kentucky6 Fletcher (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +2 Lewis, R. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 Lucas, K. (D ) 67% + + + + + - + - + + - -3 Northup (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +5 Rogers, H. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +1 Whitfield (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

Louisiana5 Alexander, R. (D ) 83% - + + + + + + - + + + +6 Baker (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +2 Jefferson (D ) 17% - + - - - X X X X X X +7 John (D ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +4 McCrery (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +3 Tauzin (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +1 Vitter (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

Maine1 Allen, T. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -2 Michaud (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - + - - -

Maryland6 Bartlett (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +3 Cardin (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -7 Cummings (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +1 Gilchrest (R ) 67% - + + + + - + - - + + +5 Hoyer (D ) 0% - - - - - - X X - - - -2 Ruppersberger (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - X8 Van Hollen (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -4 Wynn (D ) 25% - + - - + - - + - - - -

Massachusetts8 Capuano (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

10 Delahunt (D ) 0% X - - X - - - - - - - -4 Frank, B. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +9 Lynch (D ) 8% - - - - - + - - - - - -7 Markey (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -3 McGovern (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Meehan (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +2 Neal (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +1 Olver (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +6 Tierney (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



Michigan4 Camp (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

14 Conyers (D ) 8% - - X X X - - - - - - +15 Dingell (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

3 Ehlers (R ) 58% + + + + + - - - - - + +2 Hoekstra (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +5 Kildee (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

13 Kilpatrick (D ) 8% - - - - - - + - - - - -9 Knollenberg (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +

12 Levin, S. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +11 McCotter (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +10 Miller, C. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

8 Rogers, Mike (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +7 Smith, N. (R ) 83% + + + + + + - + + + + -1 Stupak (D ) 33% - - X X - - - + + + - +6 Upton (R ) 67% + + + + + - - - + - + +

Minnesota1 Gutknecht (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +6 Kennedy, M. (R ) 92% + + + + + + - + + + + +2 Kline (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 McCollum (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -8 Oberstar (D ) 33% - - + + - - - - + + - -7 Peterson, C. (D ) 83% + + + + + + + - + + + -3 Ramstad (R ) 42% - - - + + + - - + - - +5 Sabo (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mississippi3 Pickering (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +4 Taylor, G. (D ) 58% + + + + - + - - - - + +2 Thompson, B. (D ) 25% - + + - - - - - - + - -1 Wicker (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +

Missouri2 Akin (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +7 Blunt (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +1 Clay (D ) 17% - - - - + - - - - - - +8 Emerson (R ) 92% + + + + + X + + + + + +3 Gephardt (D ) 0% X X X X X X X X X X X X6 Graves (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +9 Hulshof (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +5 McCarthy, K. (D ) 0% X X - - - - - - - - - -4 Skelton (D ) 33% + - + - + + - - - - - -

MontanaAL Rehberg (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

Nebraska1 Bereuter (R ) 67% + + + + - - - - + + + +3 Osborne (R ) 83% + + + + + - + + + + + X2 Terry (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

Nevada1 Berkley (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -2 Gibbons (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Porter (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

New Hampshire2 Bass (R ) 83% - + + + + + + - + + + +1 Bradley (R ) 83% - + + + + + + - + + + +

New Jersey1 Andrews (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -7 Ferguson (R ) 33% - + - + + X X X X X X +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



New Jersey (Continued)11 Frelinghuysen (R ) 58% - + + + + - - - + - + +

5 Garrett (R ) 92% - + + + + + + + + + + +12 Holt (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 LoBiondo (R ) 33% - - - + + + - - - - - +13 Menendez (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 Pallone (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +8 Pascrell (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 Payne (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - X9 Rothman (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -3 Saxton (R ) 42% - + - + + + - - - - - +4 Smith, C. (R ) 25% - - - + + - - - - - - +

New Mexico2 Pearce (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Udall, T. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -1 Wilson, H. (R ) 92% + + + + + - + + + + + +

New York5 Ackerman (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -1 Bishop, T. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

24 Boehlert (R ) 50% - + + + + - - - + - - +7 Crowley (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

17 Engel (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -13 Fossella (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +22 Hinchey (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -29 Houghton (R ) 33% X X + + - - - - - + + X

2 Israel (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -19 Kelly (R ) 42% + + - + + + - - - - - -

3 King, P. (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +18 Lowey (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -14 Maloney, C. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

4 McCarthy, C. (D ) 17% - - - - + - - - - - - +23 McHugh (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +21 McNulty (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 Meeks, G. (D ) 17% - + - - - - - - - - - +8 Nadler (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 Owens (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - + -27 Quinn (R ) 75% + X + + + - + - + + + +15 Rangel (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +26 Reynolds (R ) 92% + + + + + - + + + + + +16 Serrano (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -28 Slaughter (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -20 Sweeney (R ) 83% + + + + + + + - + + + X10 Towns (D ) 8% + X - - - - - - - - - -12 Velazquez (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - + - - -25 Walsh (R ) 67% - + + + + - + - - + + +

9 Weiner (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -North Carolina

1 Ballance (D ) 17% - - - - - - - + - - - +10 Ballenger (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

5 Burr (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +6 Coble (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +2 Etheridge (D ) 17% - - - - - - + - - - - +8 Hayes (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Jones, W. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +7 McIntyre (D ) 42% - - - + + + + - - - - +

13 Miller, B. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



North Carolina (Continued)9 Myrick (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +4 Price, D. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

11 Taylor, C. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +12 Watt (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

North DakotaAL Pomeroy (D ) 50% - - - + - - + - + + + +

Ohio8 Boehner (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +

13 Brown, S. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -1 Chabot (R ) 92% + + + + + + + + - + + +5 Gillmor (R ) 75% + + + + + - + - - + + +7 Hobson (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

11 Jones, S. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -9 Kaptur (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 Kucinich (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -14 LaTourette (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +18 Ney (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

4 Oxley (R ) 83% - + + + + - + + + + + +2 Portman (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

15 Pryce, D. (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +16 Regula (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +17 Ryan, T. (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -

6 Strickland (D ) 8% - - - - - - - + - - - -12 Tiberi (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

3 Turner, M. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +Oklahoma

2 Carson, B. (D ) 42% + + - - + - - - - + - +4 Cole (R ) 92% + + + + + - + + + + + +5 Istook (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +3 Lucas, F. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +1 Sullivan (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

Oregon3 Blumenauer (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +4 DeFazio (D ) 25% - - - - - + + + - - - -5 Hooley (D ) 25% - - - - + - + + - - - -2 Walden (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +1 Wu (D ) 8% - - - - - - + - - - - -

Pennsylvania1 Brady, R. (D ) 25% + + X X - - - - - + - -

14 Doyle (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -3 English (R ) 75% + + + + + - + - - + + +2 Fattah (D ) 0% - X - - - - - - - - - X6 Gerlach (R ) 58% - + + + + - + - + - - +8 Greenwood (R ) 58% - + + + + - + - - + - +4 Hart (R ) 92% + + + + + - + + + + + +

13 Hoeffel (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -17 Holden (D ) 17% - - - - - + - - - + - -11 Kanjorski (D ) 17% + - - - - - - - - + - -18 Murphy (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +12 Murtha (D ) 25% + + - - - - - - - + - -

5 Peterson, J. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +16 Pitts (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +19 Platts (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +10 Sherwood (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



Pennsylvania (Continued)9 Shuster, Bill (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

15 Toomey (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +7 Weldon, C. (R ) 67% + + + + + - - - - + + +

Rhode Island1 Kennedy, P. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +2 Langevin (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

South Carolina3 Barrett (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +1 Brown, H. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +6 Clyburn (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -4 DeMint (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +5 Spratt (D ) 0% - - - - - X - - - - - -2 Wilson, J. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

South DakotaAL Janklow (R ) 50% + + + + + X X X X X X +

Tennessee7 Blackburn (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +5 Cooper (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -4 Davis, L. (D ) 50% - - + + + + - - - + - +2 Duncan (R ) 83% - + + + + + + + + + + -9 Ford (D ) 17% - - - - + - - - - - - +6 Gordon, B. (D ) 17% - - - - + + - - - X - X1 Jenkins (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +8 Tanner (D ) 58% + - + + + - + - - + + -3 Wamp (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +

Texas6 Barton (R ) 75% + + + + + + + + X X X +

25 Bell (D ) 17% - + - - + - - - - - - -23 Bonilla (R ) 67% + + + + + + + - X X X +

8 Brady, K. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +26 Burgess (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +31 Carter (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

7 Culberson (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +22 DeLay (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +10 Doggett (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -11 Edwards, C. (D ) 67% + + + + + - - - - + + +24 Frost (D ) 17% - + - - - - - - - - - +20 Gonzalez (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +12 Granger (R ) 67% + + + + + + + - X X X +29 Green, G. (D ) 33% + + - - - + - - - - - +

4 Hall, R. (R ) 83% - + + + + + + - + + + +5 Hensarling (R ) 92% + + + + + + + + + + + X

15 Hinojosa (D ) 25% + + - - + - - - - - - -18 Jackson-Lee, S. (D ) 17% - + - - - - - - - - - +

3 Johnson, Sam (R ) 67% + + + + + + + - X X X +30 Johnson, E.B. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

9 Lampson (D ) 17% - + - - + - - - - - - -19 Neugebauer (R ) 100% I I I I + + + + + + + +27 Ortiz (D ) 42% + + - - - - + - - + + -14 Paul (R ) 83% X X + + + + + + + + + +16 Reyes (D ) 33% + X - - - - - - - + + +28 Rodriguez (D ) 8% + - - - - - - - - - - -

1 Sandlin (D ) 67% + + + - + - - + - + + +32 Sessions, P. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



Texas (Continued)21 Smith, L. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +17 Stenholm (D ) 92% + + + + - + + + + + + +13 Thornberry (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

2 Turner, J. (D ) 67% + + + + - - + - - + + +Utah

1 Bishop, R. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +3 Cannon (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +2 Matheson (D ) 58% - + + + + - - - + + - +

VermontAL Sanders (I ) 8% - - - - - - - - + - - -

Virginia9 Boucher (D ) 17% - - - - + - - - - - - +7 Cantor (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +1 Davis, Jo Ann (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

11 Davis, T. (R ) 75% + + X + + - + - + + + +4 Forbes (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +5 Goode (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +6 Goodlatte (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +8 Moran, James (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +2 Schrock (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +3 Scott, R. (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 Wolf (R ) 83% + + + + + - + - + + + +Washington

3 Baird (D ) 8% - - + - - - - - - - - -6 Dicks (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +8 Dunn (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +4 Hastings, D. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +1 Inslee (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -2 Larsen, R. (D ) 25% - - - - + - + - - - - +7 McDermott (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Nethercutt (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +9 Smith, A. (D ) 8% - - - - - - - - - - - +

West Virginia2 Capito (R ) 75% + + + + + - + - - + + +1 Mollohan (D ) 50% + + + + - - - - - + + -3 Rahall (D ) 8% - - - - + - - - - - - -

Wisconsin2 Baldwin (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -8 Green, M. (R ) 92% + + + + + + + - + + + +3 Kind, R. (D ) 17% - - - - - - - - + - - +4 Kleczka (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -7 Obey (D ) 0% - - - - - - - - - - - -6 Petri (R ) 67% - - + + + + + - + - + +1 Ryan, P. (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +5 Sensenbrenner (R ) 83% + - + + + + + + + - + +

WyomingAL Cubin (R ) 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +


% AGREED


PE

RM

IT A

NW

R E

NE

RG

Y

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RA

ISE

TA

XE

S F

OR

OIL

EX

PLO

RAT

ION

RE

STR

ICT

RU

RA

L

FOR

ES

T TH

INN

ING

INC

RE

AS

E L

EG

AL

DE

LAY

S

FOR

FO

RE

ST

THIN

NIN

GR

EP

EA

L D

EAT

H T

AX

LIM

IT T

AX

FU

ND

S T

O U

NIT

ED

NAT

ION

SE

LIM

INAT

E K

LAM

ATH

BA

SIN

FAR

MIN

GC

UT

LAN

D G

RA

BS

, MO

RE

FIR

EFI

GH

TIN

GE

LIM

INAT

E S

NO

WM

OB

ILE

S

IN Y

ELL

OW

STO

NE

CO

DIF

Y R

OA

DLE

SS

PU

BLI

C L

AN

D L

OC

KU

P

RS

247

7 P

UB

LIC

LA

ND

S

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

SC

HE

RO

KE

E IN

DIA

N L

AN

D

EX

CH

AN

GE



The 2003 Private Property CongressionalVote Index is co-sponsored by:

Alaska Miners AssociationAmerican Borate CompanyAmerican Forest Resource CouncilAmerican Land Rights AssociationAmerican Policy CenterAssociated Industries of VermontAssociated Oregon LoggersBates ConstructionBlack Hills Multiple Use CoalitionBrizard CompanyBrubaker-Mann IncorporatedBuchanan Hardwoods, IncorporatedBunker Hill MineBurgess LoggingCable Hardwoods, IncorporatedCalifornia Forestry AssociationCalifornia Women in Timber, Siskiyou ChapterCentral Texas Taxpayers AssociationChuckwalla Mountain Desert RatsCitizens for Constitutional Property RightsCochran-Zandi Lumber CompanyCommunities for a Great NorthwestConstitution Political Action CommitteeCox RanchCrooked Lake Northshore AssociationDavis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage AssociationDouble R PropertiesEastern Oregon Mining AssociationFamily Water AllianceFire Island National Seashore Advisory BoardForest Landowners Association IncorporatedFur Commission USAGulf Lumber CompanyHammond RanchesHerron Lumber IncorporatedHill Country Heritage AssociationJ & J Forest Products IncorporatedLandowners Association of North DakotaLejabeach.comLumbermen's Association of TexasLynch BrothersMacMullin Forestry & LoggingMultiple Use AssociationMultiple-Use Land AllianceNational Inholders AssociationNevada Farm BureauNew Mexico Woolgrowers Action CommitteeNorthwest Council of GovernmentsOregonians for Food & ShelterPapco IncorporatedParsons Ranch Company

People for the ConstitutionPine River Lumber Company Ltd.Potlatch CorporationPrescott Livestock AuctionProfessional Agri ServiceProperty Owners Standing Together (POST)Property Rights Foundation of AmericaQuail's Nest IndustriesRSG Forest Products IncorporatedResource Development CouncilRobinson & SonsSan Joaquin County Citizens Land AllianceSimpson Resource CompanySouth Dakota Women in Timber, Black Hills ChapterTake Care/Sierra Forest ProductsTexas Wildlife AssociationThe Conservative Caucus FoundationTrans Texas Heritage AssociationV-Cross Cattle/Open N CattleVirginians for Property RightsWarren Land & Development IncorporatedWashington Contract Loggers AssociationWashington County AllianceWashington Property Rights AllianceWestern States Ground Water AllianceWilliam Tripp Ranch

Individuals:Dirk AndersonRichard BrodersRogan CoombsTerry CooperRobert & Joyce CoveyJay CoxVelda DickeyRoy DonerBecky Norton DunlopPeter & Mary Jane EhrmanJ. Roger FriedmanBen GardnerBetty GibsonJack & Jane HearnJack HoagAnthony IntisoJohn & Patricia KingWilliam E. LindseyEdith RomeyTom StriderBarbara VealeGordon Ziesing

Add your name or your Company name to this list!!Call: 360-687-2471 — Fax: 360-687-2973 or

Email: [email protected] co-sponsors are signing up every day. See next page for details.

PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEXSPONSORSHIP ACCEPTANCE FORM

YES, I wish to sponsor the Private Property Congressional Vote Index.Here is my $100 to become an official sponsor.

Enclosed is $35 for membership in the League of Private Property Voters. I understand I willreceive various alerts and publications to keep me informed about government land acquisition, UnitedNations, Federal and state land use controls, wetlands, Endangered Species Act and other private propertyissues.

I cannot be a co-sponsor of the Index at this time. However, I really like the Vote Index. Here's acontribution to help mail the Index to more people.

$500_____ $200_____ $100_____ Other $_____________

NAME_______________________________ ORGANIZATION (if any)_________________________________

ADDRESS_________________________________________________________________________________

CITY_____________________________________________ STATE______ ZIP________________________

TELEPHONE_________________________________ FAX________________________________________

E-MAIL_________________________________ WEBSITE __________________________________________

Please contact the organization below about being a co-sponsor of the Private Property Vote Index.

Organization__________________________________________________________________________

Contact Name_____________________________________ Phone Number_______________________

Please mail with your check payable to:

LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERSPO Box 423Battle Ground, WA 98604(360) 687-2471Fax (360) 687-2973email: [email protected]

2003-1 vote index

Documents