Recently I came across a letter signed by liberal Democratic state representative Mark Kruzan supporting Democratic Congressman Baron Hill's re-election, on the grounds that "Baron Hill has consistently fought to protect our environment."

Excuse me, but is this the same Congressman Hill who voted, along with 101 of his fellow House Democrats, to send all of the nation's high-level nuclear waste to geologically volatile Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the state's residents and elected officials (so much for the 10th Amendment)?

Is this the same Congressman Hill who consistently votes for "free trade" agreements and Fast Track negotiating authority, which environmentalists overwhelmingly oppose? Is this the same Congressman Hill who consistently votes for war, surely the single most environmentally destructive act in which humans engage?

Granted, he voted against Bush's energy policy and one of the bills supporting drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he supported bills to maintain EPA funding levels, enforce tighter standards on arsenic in drinking water, and prohibit or restrict offshore oil drilling.

But he also voted against increased fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. He opposed a bill funding agricultural conservation programs, as well as a bill that would have cut federal subsidies for fossil fuels and increased funding for energy efficiency and a bill amendment that would have increased funding for renewable energy programs. He also supported an amendment to the House energy bill that would have permitted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Overall, Hill earned a 63% rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard. And I don't recall he or any of his Democratic Congressional colleagues making much noise while their buddies in the Clinton Administration were busily sabotaging the Kyoto global warming treaty to which they had given so much lip service, refusing to make even minimal commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. In short, Kruzan and colleagues' usage of the term "consistently" is one with which I must admit I was not previously familiar.

It isn't just environmental issues where progressive Democratic politicians like Kruzan (and their counterparts in many liberal lobbying groups) ought to be thinking twice about their unconditional support of Democrats like Hill, though. On vote after vote and issue after issue, so-called "moderate" Democrats - and often liberal ones, too - fail to seriously challenge the Republican agenda. Even more disturbingly, many Democrats seem content to cede more and more power to the Executive Branch.

Let's start with the fact that George Bush is president at all. Not a single white congressional Democrat called for a congressional investigation of George W. Bush's illegitimate selection as president or the numerous violations of the Voting Rights Act by Florida's Republican electoral machine that it involved, even though these irregularities clearly provided Bush's narrow margin of victory in decisive Florida. The number of discarded African-American votes in a single county exceeded Bush's margin of victory in the state, yet somehow a Congressional investigation isn't warranted?

The fact that roughly half of Congressional Democrats have supported "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO that have cost the United States hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and harmed the environment and workers' rights worldwide is bad enough. Even worse is the fact that 25 House Democrats (including Hill) and 23 Senate Democrats helped the Republicans pass "Fast Track," which will grant George Bush authority to negotiate the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas with no input whatsoever from Congress.

Baron Hill was one of 81 House Democrats who supported the recent Congressional resolution authorizing George Bush to take military action against Iraq. A majority of Senate Democrats supported it. Even many opponents, such as Senator Paul Wellstone, said they would support military action if the U.N. Security Council approved it. The resolution unconstitutionally gives Congress' war-making authority to the Executive Branch, and authorizes Bush to, if he chooses, unilaterally launch a U.S. attack on a nation that has neither attacked nor threatened to attack the U.S. or any other country. So much for international law and the well-being of Iraq's 22 million people who aren't named Saddam Hussein. Time for Oil War II!

In keeping with the general theme of giving ever-more power to an unelected President, Congress passed the so-called USA Patriot Act by a vote of 357-66 in the House and 96-1 in the Senate. This blatant attack on our Constitutional rights, which grants the Executive Branch virtually unlimited power to spy on private citizens, indefinitely detain non-citizens or even citizens if the Administration decides to deem them "terrorists," and other scary powers, was supported by 145 House Democrats. (Hill was out of town due to a family emergency at the time, and has not taken a position for or against the bill.)

Few Congressional Democrats - certainly not Baron Hill, whose many corporate PAC donors include most of the leading weapons contractors -- support cutting the military budget. In fact, last year the House voted 398-17 to increase it by 10 percent, even though at $310 billion it was already over five times that of the nearest competitor. The Senate voted unanimously (99-0) for this outrageous increase. This year's military budget, also approved by a majority from both parties, is $380 billion!

The same goes for other major issues. Although other industrialized nations have had national health insurance programs that have insured everyone and kept health care costs in check for decades, the vast majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans would not even dream of supporting such a system here. There they have sat in Congress year after year, twiddling their thumbs except for the occasional tepid reform, as the nation's uninsured population rises to 41 million, mental health care funding is slashed by 50 percent, infant mortality figures continue to be embarrassingly high for such a wealthy nation, and the world's most expensive health care keeps getting even more expensive.

Hill and his colleagues continue to pass farm bills that give disproportionate shares of farm subsidies to corporate agribusiness. Tens of millions of Americans make less than the $10 an hour or so it would take to meet a family's basic needs, but raising the minimum wage much beyond the current $5.15 is not even discussed by more than a handful of federal politicians. Only 10 percent of workers in the private sector are unionized, the lowest percentage in the industrialized world, but is Congress doing anything about it? Not a single Congressional Democrat, to my knowledge, has proposed repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that is the major reason the American labor movement is so small and weak.

Congressional Democrats aren't safe bets on social issues, either. Thirty Democrats, including Baron Hill, supported a bill amendment that would have made it illegal for gay, lesbian, or heterosexual unmarried couples in the District of Columbia to adopt a child. Sixty-four Democrats, including Hill, voted to prohibit the transportation of minors across state lines for abortions; 77 Democrats, Hill among them, voted to ban so-called "partial birth" abortions except when the mother's life is in danger, even though the rare abortions that are done this way are often necessary to protect the mother's health. And in the course of a discussion with a female laid-off G.E. employee anxious about the likelihood of finding a good job after her retraining program was completed, Congressman Hill told her: "Don't worry; you're young and attractive; I'm sure you'll find something." At best, the remark displayed an astonishing degree of cluelessness about the likelihood that such a comment would be found offensive by a great many women - and men.

It is on the other issues, however - "free trade," health care, energy and environmental policy, war and peace, low wages, etc. - that the gap between ordinary Americans and their Congressional representatives is the widest. We in the Green Party argue that this is because big money has such a corrupting effect on electoral politics. The average Congressional race costs $1 million to win. The overwhelming majority of campaign funds come from corporate PACs and the wealthy, and lobbying is similarly dominated by wealthy special interests. In return, these interests get the best Congress their money can buy.

Green Party candidates can't be bought; we do not accept campaign contributions from corporate PACs. Because of this, we can truly commit ourselves to core Green Party values such as grassroots democracy, nonviolence except in self-defense, social justice, and ecological wisdom. We unconditionally oppose the impending war against Iraq and all other military actions not undertaken in direct self-defense. Fifty-two Green Party Congressional candidates, including myself, have adopted a pledge to, among other things: repeal the USA Patriot Act, end corporate welfare and "free trade" agreements and pursue policies that support family farms and other small businesses instead, cut the military budget, enforce the Voting Rights Act, support public funding for political candidates, support national health insurance and a living wage and repeal Taft-Hartley, pursue foreign policies that respect international law and human rights, and drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. The full text of our pledge can be found on the national Green Party's Web site: www.greenpartyus.org.

But aren't even conservative Democrats like Baron Hill or John Fernandez still better than their Republican opponents? Yes, usually they are. However, as I've argued above, in many ways they aren't different enough to meet what many voters would consider minimal criteria on a variety of important issues. If we ever hope to repeal Taft-Hartley, pursue fair trade rather than "free trade," provide universal health insurance, pursue a sane energy policy that truly addresses global warming, stop boondoggles such as new-terrain I-69, or enact other badly needed reforms I've discussed above, we have to stop guaranteeing Democrats our vote just because they're not quite as bad as Republicans, and we have to stop trying to convince others and ourselves that lesser evils aren't really evil at all. Only then can we build the strong grassroots movements for social change that we need to truly protect our planet and our rights.

Jeff Melton is the Green Party candidate for Congress in Indiana's 9th District. For more details on Melton's candidacy, go to: www.meltonforcongress.org.