Logging Without Laws

Senate Roll Call Vote 33

1996 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

42

Votes Against

55

Not Voting

3

Congress attached a “rider” to the 1995 Budget Rescissions Act that allows timber companies to purchase and log parcels in our national forests without regard to federal environmental laws. Logging without adequate environmental safeguards has ravaged old-growth and healthy, green trees under the guise of “salvaging” dead or diseased timber. It imperils fisheries, destroys habitat for endangered wildlife, degrades water quality in streams and rivers, and undermines commercial and sportfishing industries. The rider blocked all environmental challenges to these timber sales.

H.R. 3019, the Fiscal Year 1996 Omnibus Rescissions and appropriations bill, continued the dangerous precedent set by the salvage rider, extending indefinitely the time for old-growth timber sales directed by the rider language. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) offered an amendment to suspend the salvage provision, permit environmental challenges, allow the government to buy back timber contracts and authorize the sale of diseased, fire-damaged, or wind-damaged trees.

On March 14, 1996, the Senate rejected the Murray amendment, 42 – 54. YES is the pro-environment vote.

On April 26, 1996, President Clinton signed H.R. 3019 into law with the 1995 logging language intact.

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%