National Energy Policy

House Roll Call Vote 320

2001 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

240

Votes Against

189

Not Voting

5

Environmentalists criticized President Bush’s national energy plan, released on May 17, 2000, for emphasizing polluting fossil fuel development and production at the expense of cleaner renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies. Key features of the president’s plan were incorporated into the House energy bill, H.R. 4.

If signed into law, H.R. 4 would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other public lands to oil drilling and other energy development and would give polluting energy companies more than $38 billion in new or expanded taxpayer-funded handouts. The oil and gas industries alone would receive more than $21 billion in subsidies, mostly through tax breaks. For example, H.R. 4 would:

  • Extend and expand the credit for “non-conventional” fuels by $2.8 billion over the next ten years. This subsidy is now largely used to encourage destructive coal bed methane drilling, which is responsible for contaminating drinking water supplies in the West. 
  • Increase the amount of tax deductions that oil and gas producers with low-producing wells can take. These deductions could cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1 billion over five years. 

The coal industry would receive more than $5.8 billion in handouts, including tax incentives for installing “advanced clean coal technology,” which, despite its name, still produces large amounts of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other pollutants. H.R. 4 would also create a federally funded research and development program called the Clean Coal Power Initiative to ensure that coal remains a cost-competitive source of electricity.

The nuclear power industry would receive more than $2.7 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, including funding for research on reducing the toxicity of nuclear waste through reprocessing. According to a Department of Energy report to Congress, these technologies could, over the next century, cost upward of $280 billion and would still not eliminate the need for a repository for highly radioactive wastes. The research program would also reverse a decade-old U.S. policy against the reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel because it creates weapons grade plutonium.

Environmental groups argued that a national energy strategy should provide consumers with clean, affordable energy that protects the environment. H.R. 4, by contrast, would provide massive handouts for polluting fossil fuel producers and developers at the expense of the environment and U.S. taxpayers. On August 1, 2001, the House approved H.R. 4 by a 240-189 vote (House roll call vote 320). NO is the pro-environment vote. At press time, the Senate had yet to act on comprehensive energy legislation introduced by Senator Thomas Daschle (D-SD).

Votes

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

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2024 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2024 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2024 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2024 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2024 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2024 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2024 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2024 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2024 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2024 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2024 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2024 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2024 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2024 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2024 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2024 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2024 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2024 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2024 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2024 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2024 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2024 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%