Synthetic Fuel Tax Credits

Senate Roll Call Vote 436

1984 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

52

Votes Against

43

Not Voting

5

The environmental and economic problems of synthetic fuel production are noted above. Environmentalists favor continued research on synthetic fuels, but oppose big subsidies for commercial development until these problems have been solved. Shortly after Congress passed the $17.7 billion subsidy to be administered by the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, it let the special 10% investment tax credit for synfuels expire. But in 1984 there was a move in the Senate to restore this tax credit. Senator Bradley, with environmentalist support, offered an amendment to stop projects which were taking money from the SFC from also taking advantage of the 10% tax credit. This vote was on the Wallop motion to kill the Bradley amendment.

Allowing synthetic fuel companies to “double dip” at the public trough would indeed be ridiculous, especially in a time of huge federal deficits and cuts in social and environmental programs. Support from the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, along with other tax breaks, has made the synthetic fuels industry one of the most heavily subsidized in the nation. Double dipping would have cost taxpayers about $170 million in the years 1984 – 1987, and even more thereafter.

Wallop motion agreed to 52-43; April 11, 1984. NO is the pro-environmental vote. (Wallop motion to table Bradley amendment to Dole Amendment to Miscellaneous Tariff, Trade and Customs Matters bill, H.R. 2163.) Although this bill to restore the synfuels tax credit passed the Senate, it died in the 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%