1981 Scorecard Vote

Environmental Funding Cuts II
House Roll Call Vote 95
Issue: Other

Bolling (D-MO) motion to allow separate votes on funding cuts for individual programs (including energy and the environment) in the fiscal year 1982 Budget Reconciliation bill. The House was about to vote on whether to approve the funding levels set by the House committees in an effort to meet the targets of the first Gramm-Latta resolution (see vote #1 above). Once again there was a confrontation between House committee leaders and the Reagan Administration, which wanted to impose its own budget priorities. Bolling wanted the House to have the opportunity to vote separately on the budgets proposed by each committee, or the Reagan alternatives for those same programs. Reagan wanted a single up or down vote on the entire package -- either the Budget Committee's proposal or his own Gramm-Latta substitute.

Environmentalists believe they would have fared much better had the lawmakers been forced to vote separately on energy and environmental programs and consider them on their merits. But it was much easier for Members to justify their vote for the entire Gramm-Latta package as their "support for the President's budget" which was popular at the time. Environmentalists strongly favored a number of the House committees' proposals over the Gramm-Latta substitute. Gramm-Latta repealed the weatherization program for low-income homes, and put in money for the Clinch River breeder reactor and the SRC-1 synfuels plant (see vote descriptions #12 & #13 below), which the Science and Technology Committee had refused to fund. Bolling motion rejected 210-217 (Republicans 1-188, Democrats 209-29); June 25, 1981. YES is the pro-environment vote.

It is instructive to compare these first two votes, which cut funds for good environmental programs, with other votes on this chart which cut very wasteful and destructive programs. The lineup is quite different, showing that many Members who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" are not consistent in voting that way.

Yes
is the
pro-environment position
Votes For: 209  
Votes Against: 218  
Not Voting: 4  
Pro-environment vote
Anti-environment vote
Missed vote
Not applicable
Representative Party District Vote
Bevill, TomDAL-04 
Young, DonRAK-AL 
Stark, PeteDCA-09 
Lantos, TomDCA-11 
Lungren, DanRCA-34 
Lewis, JerryRCA-37 
Fuqua, DonDFL-02 
Nelson, BillDFL-09 
Shaw, ClayRFL-12 
Savage, GusDIL-02 
Hyde, HenryRIL-06 
Coats, DanRIN-04 
Harkin, TomDIA-05 
Roberts, PatRKS-01 
Markey, EdDMA-07 
Lott, TrentRMS-05 
Skelton, IkeDMO-04 
Taylor, GeneRMO-07 
McEwen, BobROH-06 
Watkins, WesROK-03 
AuCoin, LesDOR-01 
Wyden, RonDOR-03 
Yatron, GusDPA-06 
Jones, EdDTN-07 
Hall, RalphRTX-04 
Gramm, PhilRTX-06 
Archer, BillRTX-07 
Paul, RonRTX-22 
Bliley, TomRVA-03 
Wolf, FrankRVA-10 
Foley, TomDWA-05 
Dicks, NormDWA-06 
Rahall, NickDWV-04 
Petri, TomRWI-06