Factory Farms

Senate Roll Call Vote 15

2002 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

44

Votes Against

52

Not Voting

4

Concentrated animal feeding operations, commonly called factory farms, pose a serious threat to the environment. By concentrating tens or hundreds of thousands of animals in a small area, these farms generate huge quantities of animal waste–billions of pounds of manure each day. Liquefied animal waste is often stored in large, leaky open-air lagoons and sprayed on nearby fields that are too small to absorb the high volume of waste. As a result, the surrounding area’s surface and groundwater may be contaminated with nitrogen, phosphorous, salt, heavy metals, pathogens, antibiotics and hormones; and the surrounding air may be polluted by ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane. This pollution has led to algal blooms, massive fish kills and serious threats to the public’s health in surrounding areas.

During Congressional reauthorization of the farm bill, large agribusinesses lobbied Congress to subsidize manure management at factory farms. At the center of the debate was the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which offers agricultural producers (including livestock producers) financial and technical assistance in improving water quality, wildlife habitat, wetlands and grazing lands.

In the previous farm bill, Congress made it clear that EQIP funds were not to be used by factory farms for manure management. However, during consideration of S. 1731, the 2002 farm bill, the House and Senate agriculture committees greatly increased funding for the EQIP program and, at the same time, lifted the manure management restriction for the largest operations. Opponents of this move contended that Congress should not subsidize large agribusinesses at the expense of both the environment and small farmers.

Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) offered an amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars would not subsidize new factory farms or the further concentration of existing operations. His amendment also prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the construction of manure lagoons in areas highly prone to flooding. On February 6, 2002, the Senate rejected the Wellstone amendment by a 44-52 vote (Senate roll call vote 15). YES is the pro-environment vote. A scaled-back version of the amendment later passed the Senate by voice vote. However, many of the policy provisions from Senator Wellstone’s second amendment were removed or greatly weakened by the House-Senate conference report, which was passed by the Senate on May 8, 2002, and signed into law by President Bush on May 13, 2002.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%