Nuclear Basing Mode

Senate Roll Call Vote 113

1981 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

59

Votes Against

39

Not Voting

2

Tower (R-TX) motion to table (kill) the Levin (D-MI) – Kassenbaum (R-KS) amendment to the fiscal 1982 Defense Authorization bill to require advance approval of both houses of Congress before the funds in the bill could be spent on a basing mode for the MX Missile. This vote was taken before President Reagan cancelled the multiple protective shelter basing mode for the MX missile. To protect against a Soviet nuclear strike, the Air Force wanted to put more than 200 MX missiles in valleys in Nevada and Utah. Each missile would move continually between 4,600 shelters and 23 potential launch sites, so the Soviets would not know their exact location at any one time. This shell game is called the basing mode, and would affect 25,000 square miles of land, much of it de facto wilderness. Local ranchers and environmentalists, as well as several national environmental groups, opposed this method of basing the missiles because it meant massive withdrawals of land, boom towns, a staggering drain on the area’s water resources and an end to traditional rural lifestyles. The missiles will be almost impossible to hide unless the whole area is off limits to the public. The missiles can be used as offensive first strike weapons. The shell game basing mode could have cost $50 billion, excluding the production costs of the missile itself, money that would not then be available either for social programs or for more sensible defense programs. Motion agreed to 59-39; May 13, 1981. NO 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%