February, 23 2011, 02:40pm EDT

20 Surveys: Strong Opposition Nationally and in Key Districts to U.S. House Members' Actions to Block Public Health Protections
National Survey Shows Bipartisan Public Support for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WASHINGTON
A strong majority of registered voters across the United States - including those in all 19 key Congressional Districts polled - oppose the U.S. House votes last week to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating clean air safeguards needed to protect the health of Americans, according to major new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey results released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The survey results show that all 19 of the House members - including U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Tea Party leader Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn - who supported blocking the EPA are out of step with their constituents.
Nationwide, about six out of 10 Americans (58 percent) - including 55 percent of Independents and roughly half (48 percent) of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution," according to the survey of 784 registered voters conducted February18-20, 2011 by PPP for NRDC. Additionally, more than two thirds of Americans (68 percent) - including 54 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
In separate surveys conducted in 19 Congressional Districts, PPP asked registered voters if they agreed with their member of Congress' decision to vote for legislation barring the EPA from updating clean air safeguards. In all 19 districts polled, respondents across the political spectrum said they oppose their representative's votes to handcuff the EPA and think instead that Congress should let the agency do its job of protecting public health and the environment.
The average level of public opposition to the anti-EPA votes across the 19 Congressional Districts was 66 percent - including 45 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Independents. For a full overview of the 19 surveys, go to https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-23%20Poll%20Table.pdf.
PPP polled registered voters in the following Congressional districts in eight states: Illinois (Reps. Joe Walsh, IL-8, Robert Dold, IL-10, and Bobby Schilling, IL-17); Michigan (Reps. Daniel Benishek, MI-1, and Mike Rogers, MI-8); Minnesota (Reps. Michele Bachmann, MN-6, and Chip Cravaack, MN-8); Montana (Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT-At Large); Ohio (House Speaker John Boehner, OH-8, and Reps. Patrick Tiberi, OH-12, and Jim Renacci, OH-16); Pennsylvania (Reps. Jason Altmire, PA-4, Jim Gerlach, PA-6, Patrick Meehan, PA-7, Lou Barletta, PA-11); Virginia (Reps. Robert Hurt, VA-5, Scott Rigell, VA-2); and Wisconsin (Reps. Reid Ribble, WI-8, and Sean Duffy, WI-7).
"The message here is as clear as clean air: In every district we polled, Americans want their elected representatives to let the EPA do its job instead of putting the profit-driven agenda of big polluters ahead of the health of their children," said Peter Altman, Climate Campaign Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Politicians who are considering blocking the EPA and updates to Clean Air Act safeguards should understand that doing so is very unpopular. Americans know where these actions will lead and they want their kids to be able to grow up breathing clean air."
"Americans are clearly persuaded that their health needs should take priority over the profits of polluters" said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. "Political affiliation doesn't appear to count for much when constituents are asked whether their representatives in Congress should be siding with the public's health or the political clout of polluters."
The national and 19 Congressional District findings are consistent with national polling released over the last few weeks by the American Lung Association https://www.lungusa.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/clean-air-survey.html and the Natural Resources Defense Council https://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110210.asp and https://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110202.asp.
The poll was timed to ask several questions about positions lawmakers took during last week's debate over the federal budget. During that debate, House members cast a number of votes that would severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect public health from water and air pollution. The Continuing Resolution (CR) itself cut 30 percent of the EPA's budget. The CR also contained policy provisions to block EPA from setting limits for carbon dioxide pollution. In addition, several amendments were passed that also would block the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health, including Representative Ted Poe's (R-TX) amendment to bar the EPA from taking any actions to reduce carbon dioxide pollution for any reason, Representative John Carter's (R-TX) amendment to prevent the EPA from reducing toxic pollution such as arsenic and mercury from cement kilns and Representative Mike Pompeo's amendment to prevent EPA from collecting data about carbon and other pollution.
Keeping with tradition, Speaker of the House John Boehner did not actually vote on the bill or the amendments, but supported the bill's passage as amended. Every other member whose district was polled voted for the EPA-blocking amendments, and every member except for Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) voted for the final package.
For more information on how individual members voted and how the votes put public health at risk, see https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/19%20Member%20Votes%20on%20CR.pdf and https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/strong_opposition_nationally_a.html.
FINDINGS FROM NATIONAL SURVEY
The national survey of American registered voters also showed the following
*69 percent of Americans - including 59 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents - think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*64 percent of Americans - including 57 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only about a third of Americans (36 percent).
*One of the poll questions revealed particularly strong support for clean air updates the EPA is putting forward today: 66 percent of Americans -- including 54 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- favor the EPA requiring stricter limits on the amount of toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic that coal power plants and other industrial facilities release.
*78 percent of Americans - including 69 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
*66 percent support "requiring stricter limits on the amount of toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic that coal power plants and other industrial facilities release."
*65 percent support "limiting the amount of carbon pollution that big power plants and other industrial facilities release."
*64 percent favor "requiring stricter limits on the amount of smog that vehicles and industrial facilities release."
FINDINGS FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
The following 19 Congressional Districts illustrate the broad public support for the Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA's planned updates to key anti-pollution safeguards for the protection of the health of Americans:
Illinois -- Rep. Joe Walsh, IL-8, 571 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 4.1%
*68 percent - including 60 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*73 percent - including 62 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*80 percent - including 74 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*76 percent - including 65 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 24 percent.
*83 percent - including 74 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Illinois - Rep. Robert Dold, IL-10, 690 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.7%
*74 percent - including 69 percent of Independents and 53 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*77 percent -- including 65 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*80 percent - including 67 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*77 percent - including 62 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 23 percent.
*83 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Illinois - Rep. Bobby Schilling, IL-17, 931 registered voters, 2/19-2/20, margin of error 3.2%
*65 percent - including 64 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*71 percent -- including 59 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*76 percent - including 65 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*73 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 27 percent.
*81 percent - including 72 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Michigan - Rep. Daniel Benishek, MI-1, 1,135 registered voters, 2/20-2/21, margin of error 2.9%
*62 percent - including 55 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*66 percent -- including 52 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*74 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*69 percent of Americans - including 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 31 percent.
*78 percent - including 69 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Michigan - Rep. Mike Rogers, MI-8, 754 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.6%
*64 percent - including 63 percent of Independents and 40 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*67 percent -- including 45 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*77 percent - including 61 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*74 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 26 percent.
*80 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Minnesota - Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN-6, 956 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.2%
*64 percent - including 60 percent of Independents and 35 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*69 percent -- including 47 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*73 percent - including 58 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*70 percent - including 50 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 30 percent.
*78 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Minnesota - Rep. Chip Cravaack, MN-8, 1,022 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.1%
*67 percent - including 58 percent of Independents and 36 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*69 percent -- including 38 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*73 percent - including 53 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*71 percent of Americans - including 50 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 29 percent.
*79 percent - including 57 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Montana - Rep. Denny Rehberg, MT-At Large, 1,065 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3%
*58 percent - including 54 percent of Independents and 32 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*58 percent -- including 32 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*67 percent - including 39 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*62 percent - including 41 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 38 percent.
*72 percent - including 56 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Ohio - U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, OH-8, 805 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.5%
*56 percent - including 51 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*62 percent -- including 49 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*71 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*66 percent - including 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 34 percent.
*75 percent - including 66 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Ohio -- Rep. Patrick Tiberi, OH-12, 729 registered voters, 2/20-2/21, margin of error 3.6%
*65 percent - including 57 percent of Independents and 44 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*67 percent -- including 48 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*73 percent - including 58 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*69 percent - including 57 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 31 percent.
*77 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Ohio - Rep. Jim Renacci, OH-16, 705 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.7%
*59 percent - including 48 percent of Independents and 41 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*64 percent -- including 48 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*71 percent - including 57 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*68 percent - including 52 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 32 percent.
*76 percent - including 65 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Jason Altmire, P-4, 867 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.3%
*61 percent - including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*66 percent -- including 52 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*72 percent - including 64 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*70 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 30 percent.
*80 percent - including 71 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA-6, 839 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.4%
*72 percent - including 69 percent of Independents and 48 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*76 percent -- including 57 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*78 percent - including 62 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*76 percent of Americans - including 58 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 24 percent.
*86 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Patrick Meehan, PA-7, 542 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 4.2%
*76 percent - including 80 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*80 percent -- including 62 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*84 percent - including 79 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*80 percent - including 69 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 20 percent.
*87 percent - including 76 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Lou Barletta, PA-11, 859 registered voters, 2/20-2/21, margin of error 3.3%
*70 percent - including 58 percent of Independents and 53 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*79 percent -- including 68 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*82 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*79 percent - including 68 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 21 percent.
*88 percent - including 82 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Virginia - Rep. Robert Hurt, VA-5, 767 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.5%
*68 percent - including 69 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*73 percent -- including 55 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*74 percent - including 61 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*73 percent - including 52 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 27 percent.
*83 percent - including 64 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Virginia - Rep. Scott Rigell, VA-2, 556 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 4.2%
*66 percent - including 67 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*74 percent -- including 62 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*79 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*79 percent - including 70 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 21 percent.
*81 percent - including 71 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Wisconsin -- Rep. Reid Ribble, WI-8, 1,398 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 2.6%
*64 percent - including 60 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*70 percent -- including 60 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*74 percent - including 69 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*71 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 29 percent.
*79 percent - including 72 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Wisconsin - Rep. Sean Duffy, WI-7, 1,578 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 2.5%
*62 percent - including 55 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
*66 percent -- including 44 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
*74 percent - including 64 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
*69 percent - including 51 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 31 percent.
*79 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
The national survey by PPP for NRDC was conducted February 18-20, 2011, with a sample size of 784 registered voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. Full reports on the national and district-level polling results, including sample sizes, polling dates and the margin of errors associated with each of the surveys can be found at https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-23%20Poll%20Table.pdf and https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-23%20PPP%20Poll%20National%20and%20District%20Results.zip.
For all 20 of the national and Congressional District surveys, PPP conducted automated telephone surveys of registered voters using voter lists provided by Aristotle Inc. At least three attempts were made to reach every potential respondent.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Velázquez Leads 'No Masks for ICE Act' Rally at NYC Field Office
"When agents hide their faces and identities they create chaos, fear, and open the door to abuse. Immigrant communities are left wondering if they're being arrested or kidnapped."
Jun 28, 2025
Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez on Saturday held a rally outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in New York City to promote her recently introduced No Masks for ICE Act.
"We would never accept it if the NYPD operated in masks without names or badges—and we shouldn't accept it from ICE either," Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, referring to the New York Police Department.
"When agents hide their faces and identities they create chaos, fear, and open the door to abuse," she continued. "Immigrant communities are left wondering if they're being arrested or kidnapped. That's not how law enforcement should operate in a democracy. This bill is about restoring basic standards and bringing basic transparency and accountability to immigration enforcement."
"If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?"
As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works to deliver on Republican President Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations, federal agents, including those with ICE, have taken immigrants into custody while wearing masks and plain clothes—sparking alarm over abuse by anonymous agents and also copycat criminals.
Velázquez's bill would bar ICE agents from wearing facial coverings during immigration enforcement, unless medically necessary or required for safety. It would also require written justification for any mask use, agents to wear clothing displaying their name and affiliation with ICE, and DHS to report annually to Congress on any related complaints and disciplinary actions.
A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement toldCBS News on Saturday that masks are optional but that "ICE law enforcement and their families are being targeted and are facing a 500% increase in assaults... due to the demonization of ICE by hostile groups and irresponsible elected officials."
"Politicians and activists must turn the temperature down and tone down their rhetoric," the spokesperson added.
Immigrant rights advocates, legal experts, and Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) also joined the rally. He noted in a statement that "the past few months we've seen a disturbing pattern: masked, plain-clothes agents ambushing immigrants outside courtrooms and on city streets."
"If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?" Nadler asked. "This bill will put an end to those intimidation tactics, restore transparency, and ensure the public knows exactly who is wielding federal power in our communities."
Today, outside 26 Federal Plaza, we joined Congress members @velazquez.house.gov + @nadler.house.gov, @thenyic.bsky.social, @legalaidnyc.bsky.social, and allies to spotlight the No Masks for ICE Act to call for immediate federal action to end secretive, unaccountable immigration enforcement.
[image or embed]
— Make the Road NY (@maketheroadny.bsky.social) June 28, 2025 at 12:12 PM
The rally was held at 26 Federal Plaza, a 41-floor building in Lower Manhattan that houses an ICE field office and one of New York City's immigration courts. Earlier this month, NYC Comptroller Brad Lander—then a Democratic mayoral candidate—was arrested by federal agents while escorting a defendant out of immigration court at the building.
On the 10th floor, "there is a holding area where immigration authorities have typically held a few dozen immigrants at a time for a few hours before transferring them to detention centers," The New York Timesreported a few days after Lander's arrest. "But as the Trump administration expands its immigration crackdown, the space has become overcrowded and people sleep sprawled on the floor, sometimes for days, according to those who have spent time there."
The Times also noted a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem signed by nine of the state's Democratic members of Congress—Nadler and Velázquez plus Reps. Yvette Clarke, Adriano Espaillat, Dan Goldman, Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ritchie Torres—who want to conduct oversight of the field office, which they argue is a detention facility.
"Congressional oversight is essential to bring transparency to the conduct of the Department of Homeland Security," they wrote. "Given the overaggressive and excessive force used to handcuff and detain elected officials in public, DHS's refusal to allow members of Congress to observe the conditions for immigrants behind closed doors begs the obvious question: What are you hiding?"
Following the introduction of Velázquez's bill, two Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced the No Secret Police Act, which would require all law enforcement officers and DHS agents to clearly display identification and their official badges when detaining or arresting people.
That legislation is led by Goldman and Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and backed by dozens of their Democratic colleagues. Espaillat said that "if you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous. DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Terminating TPS for Haitians Slammed as Potential 'Death Sentence'
"Ending TPS for Haitians is cruel and dangerous, and a continuation of President Trump's racist and anti-immigrant practices," said Amnesty International USA.
Jun 28, 2025
Outrage over U.S. President Donald Trump's administration terminating Temporary Protected Status for around half a million Haitians, despite dire conditions in the Caribbean country, continued to mount on Saturday, with critics decrying the decision as harsh and hazardous.
"This is not just cruel—it's state-sanctioned endangerment," declared Haitian Bridge Alliance executive director Guerline Jozef.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that the Trump administration "just decided to send thousands of innocent people who have been living and working here legally into imminent danger in Haiti. Trump will tear apart families, rip up communities, and leave businesses and nursing homes shorthanded. And no one will be safer."
Warren's fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ed Markey, also weighed in on social media Saturday, arguing that "the Trump administration knows Haiti is not safe. This is a callous and shameful political decision that will have devastating human consequences. Saving lives will always be in the national interest."
"This is a callous and shameful political decision that will have devastating human consequences."
TPS was initially granted after an earthquake hit Haiti in 2010. The designation expires August 3, and Trump's Department of Homeland Security announced in a Friday statement that the termination will be effective on September 2. A DHS spokesperson said that "this decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary."
"The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home," the spokesperson added. "We encourage these individuals to take advantage of the department's resources in returning to Haiti, which can be arranged through the CBP Home app. Haitian nationals may pursue lawful status through other immigration benefit requests, if eligible."
While the DHS statement claims Haiti is safe, ignoring the deadly gang violence that has engulfed the country, the Trump administration's official notice has another focus, as some critics highlighted.
The notice states that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "has determined that termination of TPS for Haiti is required because it is contrary to the national interest to permit Haitian nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) to remain temporarily in the United States."
The Miami Heraldreported that the U.S. Department of State currently "warns Americans not to travel to Haiti 'due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.' This week, the agency also urged U.S. citizens to 'depart Haiti as soon as possible' or 'be prepared to shelter in place for an extended time period.'
According to the newspaper:
And just on Thursday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau questioned the lack of action at the Organization of American States to address the crisis in Haiti.
"Armed gangs control the streets and ports of the capital city, and public order there has all but collapsed," he said. "While Haiti descends into chaos, the unfolding humanitarian, security, and governance crisis reverberates across the region."
The Miami Herald reached out to the State Department, asking the agency to explain its recommendations. A State Department spokesperson said the department does not comment on deliberations related to TPS determinations and referred questions to DHS.
"The administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent," the spokesperson said. "TPS is a temporary protection, not a permanent benefit."
Noting the discrepancy between the two departments, Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) denounced the termination as "a deliberate act of cruelty."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said that "this is an act of policy violence that could literally be a death sentence. We should NOT be deporting anyone to a nation still dealing with a grave humanitarian crisis like Haiti. I stand with our Haitian neighbors and urge the Trump administration to reverse course."
Also urging the administration to "reverse this inhumane decision immediately," Amnesty International USA said that "ending TPS for Haitians is cruel and dangerous, and a continuation of President Trump's racist and anti-immigrant practices. Haitian TPS holders have built lives here—working, raising families, and contributing to their communities—all while fleeing unsafe situations in Haiti."
The termination came just two weeks after Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said that "at this time of untold suffering and fear, I reiterate my call to all states not to forcibly return anyone to Haiti, and to ensure that Haitians who have fled their country are protected against any kind of discrimination and stigmatization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mike Lee Tries to Sneak Public Land Sale Back Into 'Big, Ugly Bill' Ahead of Senate Vote
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
Jun 28, 2025
Ahead of a vote on Republicans' budget reconciliation package expected as soon as noon Saturday, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee revived his effort to sell off public lands.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has blocked multiple provisions of the GOP megabill, including several under the jurisdiction of the Utah Republican's panel. Among them is his attack on public lands.
"Here we go again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media after Lee released new text for his committee late Friday.
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," Wyden continued. "Republicans are trying to get this over the finish line by the end of the weekend. If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever."
Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said in a Saturday morning statement that "the new version of Mike Lee's public lands sell-off is like cutting 'most' of the mercury out of your diet. The fact of the matter is that Mike Lee has spent the better part of a decade trying to privatize our public lands, and with his new power in the Senate, he's trying to push that agenda even further without public input, without transparency, and shame."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever," Manuel added. "Congress needs to listen to their constituents, not billionaires and private developers, and keep the 'public' in public lands.”
A document from Lee states that his "amended proposal dramatically narrows the scope of lands to be sold for housing... in communities where it is desperately needed" in the U.S. West. The new version would exclude all Forest Service land and reduce the amount of Bureau of Land Management acres to be sold by half.
"It's still bullshit,"responded Noelle Porter, government affairs director at the National Housing Law Project.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has recently said: "This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."
"From the Sierra Club to Joe Rogan, everybody is pissed off about Republicans' public lands sell-off," he wrote on social media Friday. "This is the broadest coalition I've seen around public lands in my lifetime, so keep making sure your voices are heard because we're winning."
Jane Fonda's climate-focused political action committee similarly stressed on social media Friday that "Lee is committed to including a massive public land sale provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. We need you to keep up the pressure and reach out to your senators today and demand they reject any new sales of public lands in this legislation."
And it's not just the land sales in the Friday night text of what critics call the "big, ugly bill." It also "creates new fees for renewable energy projects on public lands, and cuts royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal production on public lands," noted Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, which is working to build a clean energy economy. "Make it make sense."
As Manuel and Heinrich pointed out, some right-wingers are also outraged by Lee's push to sell off public lands. Benji Backer, founder of Nature Is Nonpartisan and the American Conservation Coalition, took aim at the committee chair on social media Friday night.
"Mike Lee just quietly doubled down on his mass public lands sel-loff by releasing new text," Backer said. "The Senate could consider it as soon as tomorrow. The secrecy is gross—and intentional. Lee knows it's his only path. America, we NEED to stand strong.
Tagging the Senate GOP account and Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Backer added that "Americans are entirely UNITED in opposition against this. Please ask Sen. Lee to let this provision... stand on its own—at the very least."
Even if the Senate somehow advances Lee's legislation, it could face trouble in the House of Representatives, which is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. On Thursday, Republican Reps. Ryan Zinke (Mont.), David Valadao (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Dan Newhouse (Wash.), and Cliff Bentz (Ore.) warned that "we cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks."
"If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no," warned the lawmakers, led by Zinke, who was the interior secretary during President Donald Trump's first term. Lee's provision, they wrote, would be a "grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House floor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular