National Energy Policy (2x Score)

Senate Roll Call Vote 456

2003 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

57

Votes Against

40

Not Voting

3

President Bush’s national energy plan, released in May 2001, was strongly criticized by environmentalists for encouraging environmentally destructive practices while doing little to provide Americans with clean, efficient sources of energy. Although the House passed a bill based on his plan in 2001, the Senate passed a slightly better energy bill in 2002 and the two bodies failed to reach agreement on a final bill before the 107th Congress adjourned. Early in 2003, the House again passed a bill based on the president’s plan (House vote 1). The House bill, H.R. 6, was laden with more than $37 billion in corporate tax breaks and subsidies for the coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas industries. At the same time, it sought to weaken vitally important laws like the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill would also have given the Interior Secretary authority to exempt oil companies from paying for drilling rights on public lands and included a provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The House bill also largely failed to advance clean, efficient energy technologies that would enhance our national energy security and failed to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards.

The Senate began consideration of a substantially similar bill in the spring of 2003; however, by July it was clear that the bill’s sponsors lacked the votes to pass their bill. In a deal struck by Republican and Democratic leaders just prior to the August Congressional recess, the Senate instead passed the bill that had previously passed the Senate in 2002. The House-Senate energy conference convened early in the fall of 2003 and quickly abandoned the Senate’s bill in a process that essentially excluded both House and Senate Democratic leaders. The result of this one-sided process was an energy conference report that environmentalists argued included the worst provisions of both bills but also included a provision that had not passed either the House or Senate that would give polluted urban areas more time to meet Clean Air Act targets without having to implement stronger air pollution controls, placing a significant burden on states and communities downwind of those areas. In addition the conference report undermined clean water protections by shielding makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from existing lawsuits for contaminating drinking water in 1,500 communities in 28 states, and exempting oil and gas construction activities–including roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries, and compressor stations–from having to control polluted stormwater runoff under the Clean Water Act.

The House quickly passed the conference report; however, during Senate floor consideration of the energy bill conference report, the bill’s opponents mounted a bipartisan filibuster to block its progress. The conference report’s supporters then moved to invoke cloture, which would have effectively ended debate and brought the bill up for a vote. On November 21, 2003, the Senate voted 57-40 to reject the cloture motion–three votes short of the number needed to break the filibuster (Senate roll call vote 456). NO is the pro-environment vote. LCV considers the energy conference report to be among the most anti-environment pieces of legislation in recent history and has chosen to score this vote twice to reflect the significance of this issue. The energy conference report was removed from Senate floor consideration without a final vote, but supporters have vowed to push for final passage early in 2004.

Votes

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

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2003 State Scorecard Average

56%

Arkansas
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2003 State Scorecard Average

99%

Colorado
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Connecticut
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Delaware
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2003 State Scorecard Average

94%

Hawaii
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Idaho
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Illinois
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Indiana
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Iowa
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2003 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2003 State Scorecard Average

50%

Maryland
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Massachusetts
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Michigan
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Minnesota
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Mississippi
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Montana
2003 State Scorecard Average

29%

Nebraska
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Nevada
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

New Hampshire
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

New Jersey
2003 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Mexico
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

New York
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

North Carolina
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

North Dakota
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2003 State Scorecard Average

25%

Oklahoma
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Pennsylvania
2003 State Scorecard Average

94%

Rhode Island
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

South Dakota
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%

Utah
2003 State Scorecard Average

2%

Vermont
2003 State Scorecard Average

94%

Virginia
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

Washington
2003 State Scorecard Average

100%

West Virginia
2003 State Scorecard Average

6%

Wisconsin
2003 State Scorecard Average

50%

Wyoming
2003 State Scorecard Average

0%