Protecting Rivers and Fish

Senate Roll Call Vote 82

1993 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

57

Votes Against

41

Not Voting

2

When President Clinton proposed his broad-based energy tax, conservationists supported the administration’s position that hydroelectric power should be taxed at the average Btu content of fossil-fired electricity because of hydropower’s harmful impacts on the environment. Hydropower projects have contributed to dramatic declines in fisheries, species variety, riparian habitat, and river water quality, and the degradation of recreational areas for canoeing, rafting, hiking, and other outdoor sports enjoyed by millions of Americans.

During the budget debate, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) countered with an amendment to exclude hydroelectric power from the energy tax. Apart from rewarding the use of this damaging source of energy, exempting hydropower would have created severe regional inequities in the energy tax. About one half of the nation’s conventional hydroelectric energy is federally-marketed, much of it from federal dams in the West, and much of it is sold far below market rates. The Craig amendment would have exacerbated regional differences over the energy tax, and represented a large added subsidy for hydropower users. Budget Committee Chair Jim Sasser (D-TN) moved to table (kill) the Craig amendment to the fiscal 1994 Budget Resolution, and succeeded by a vote of 57-41 on March 25, 1993. YES is the pro-environmental vote.

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%