Drilling in the Arctic

Senate Roll Call Vote 58

2000 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

51

Votes Against

49

With its abundant and diverse wildlife, the coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been called “America’s Serengeti.” Nearly 200 species, including musk oxen, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, and millions of migratory birds make their home in this 1.5 million-acre stretch of tundra. Each year, the coastal plain is also the site of one of North America’s great wildlife spectacles: the annual migration of the Porcupine caribou herd. These caribou are a primary source of food for one of the few remaining subsistence cultures in North America, the Gwich’in people.

First established by President Eisenhower in 1960, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was further safeguarded by the Alaska Lands Act of 1980. However, multinational oil corporations have persistently lobbied for congressional authorization to drill along the refuge’s sensitive coastline–the last five percent of Alaska’s vast north slope to remain off-limits to oil exploration and development. Based on 1998 U.S. Geological Survey estimates, economically recoverable oil from the Refuge would amount to less than six months worth of U.S. oil supplies and meet no more than two percent of U.S. oil needs at any given time.

In 1989, public outrage at the Exxon Valdez oil spill helped to halt a massive industry push to allow full development on the coastal plain. In 1991, another huge outpouring of public pressure derailed President George Bush’s “National Energy Strategy,” the centerpiece of which called for oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed the entire federal budget bill, in part because it contained a provision that would have allowed oil development in the Arctic Refuge.

This year, using higher gas and heating oil prices as a pretext, Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Frank Murkowski (R-AK) attached a provision to the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 101) that would have assumed $1.2 billion in revenues from oil leasing in the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain. While this provision was not binding, it would have been a first step toward passage of broader legislation allowing drilling in the refuge.

Senator William Roth (R-DE) brought a motion to strike the drilling provision on the Senate floor. Senator Murkowski then offered a motion to table (kill) the Roth amendment. On April 6, 2000, the Senate agreed to the Murkowski motion by a 51–49 vote (Senate roll call vote 58). NO is the pro-environment vote. The Arctic drilling language was later removed from the budget resolution in House/Senate conference.

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%