Nuclear Pork Barrel

Senate Roll Call Vote 175

1994 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

52

Votes Against

46

Not Voting

2

Despite massive government subsidies, the U.S. nuclear power industry has failed to solve its serious economic, safety, and waste disposal problems and, as a result, no successful order for a new commercial nuclear reactor has been placed in over 15 years.

Federal subsidies for nuclear power continue, however. Over the last few years, for example, the Department of Energy has spent millions on a program to develop an Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR), using breeder reactor technology.

Many environmentalists note that, like many past nuclear power projects, the ALMR is economically unjustifiable and suffers from serious safety flaws. They say the ALMR will generate more high-level radioactive waste than it will consume and could increase the supply of plutonium. The critics’ views are supported by a 1991 Department of Energy report, which ranked 23 energy technologies on the basis of economic and energy potential, environmental impact, and technical risk: the ALMR received the third worst ranking.

When the Fiscal Year 1995 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 4506) came to the Senate floor, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) offered an amendment to terminate the ALMR. Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) offered a motion to table (kill) the Kerry amendment and keep the ALMR program alive.

On June 30, 1994, the Senate accepted the Johnston tabling motion by a vote of 52 – 46. NO is the pro-environment vote.

In a significant victory for the environment, the ALMR was eventually terminated after the House voted against funding the project (see House vote 18).

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%