Nuclear Pork Barrel — 1

House Roll Call Vote 234

1994 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

185

Votes Against

239

Not Voting

10

Despite massive government subsidies, the U.S. nuclear power industry has failed to solve its serious economic, safety, and waste disposal problems: 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. Since 1978, for example, the Department of Energy has spent over $900 million to develop a Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR).

Critics say that, like many past nuclear power projects, the GT-MHR is economically unjustifiable and suffers from serious safety flaws. Environmentalists, for example, note that the reactor lacks containment structures to prevent radiation from escaping into the environment in the event of an accident. And the GT-MHR received the fourth-worst grade in a 1991 Department of Energy report which ranked 23 energy companies on the basis of economic and energy potential, environmental impact, and technical risk. In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that Congress allocate no funds for the technology.

When the Fiscal Year 1995 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 4506) came to the House floor, Reps. Leslie Byrne (D-VA) and Scott Klug (R-WI) offered an amendment to terminate the dangerous nuclear project by cutting its $12 million appropriation.

On June 14, 1994, the House rejected the Byrne-Klug amendment by a vote of 188 – 241. YES is the pro-environment 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

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%