February 25, 2008

This is from the front page of today's The Commercial Appeal, of Memphis, Tennessee.

See full text of this story via the web version of this article.

February 15, 2008

This is from the front page of today's The Sentinel-Record, of Hot Springs, Arkansas.

See full text of this story via a web version of this article.

January 18, 2008

* Kansas City Plant - new $400-million NNSA facility gets final Congressional OK

January 12, 2007

* McCain-Lieberman 'Kyoto Lite' bill introduced again in 2007

The introductory statements by some of the cosponsors of the bill in Senate -- Lieberman, McCain, Snowe and Obama -- are presented here. Sen. Lieberman says "the global warming debate is over". He will chair a subcommittee on climate change for the Environment and Public Works Committee. He notes that legislation to curb global warming is one of Sen. Reid's top ten priorities for this session. Sen. McCain says "The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed", and "There is no doubt; failure to act is the far greater risk." He also stresses the quite independent advantages of national security (related to reducing dependence on foreign oil) and economics (alternate energy industry). He stresses clean and safe nuclear energy, and other clean energy sources -- and concludes that encouraging them is a matter of "simple public necessity". Sen. Snowe says there's "overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet" and characterizes current US policy as the "Nero approach" -- "fiddling as the planet warms". She is co-chair of a group called the International Climate Change Taskforce. It's recent review of the science pegs 400 ppm as appropriate policy goal for atmospheric CO2, to minimize the chance that global mean temperature will rise more than 2 degrees C. She quotes Abraham Lincoln: ""The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present." Sen. Obama says "The consequences of our inaction will be devastating for our children and grandchildren, and will be even worse for the poorest global populations."

Source: Congressional Record, "STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS", January 12, 2007, pp. S511-S515

September 22, 2006

We knuckle-dragging right-wingers were delighted when Republicans took Congress and White House, but the spending orgy may be reversible only by divided government

When The Washington Monthly asked conservative pundit Joe Scarborough to write an article supporting the proposition that Republicans should get their brains beaten in this fall, he recalls muttering something about preferring an assortment of Bourbon Street hookers running the Southern Baptist Convention to having this lot of Republicans controlling America's checkbook for the next two years. The short and ugly history of Republican Supremacy, he says, features spending growth averaging 10.4 percent per year. When he compares that to the relatively modest rate of 3.4 percent during Clinton administration, he finds himself ambivalent for the first time over a national election. Scarborough was part of the Republican Revolution, serving in Congress from 1995-2001. The capital has been a much clubbier place since then; everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts. He concludes that "After six years of Republican recklessness at home and abroad, I seriously doubt Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the aforementioned Bourbon Street hookers could spend this country any deeper into debt than my Republican Party. With any luck, Democrats will launch destructive investigations, a new era of bad feelings will break out, and George W. Bush will stop using his veto pen to fill in Rangers' box scores and instead start using it like a conservative president should."

[Source: Joe Scarborough, "And we thought Clinton had no self-control", The Washington Monthly, v38 n10, October 2006, p.Ê35]

January 31, 2006

* Rocky Flats celebration shows example of unreasonable ethics regulations

* Iran and nuclear weapons proliferation - Sen. Feingold wants stronger disincentive to those who might otherwise be tempted to aid Iran

Iran - House Committee on International Relations takes up S. Con. Res. 78

S. Con. Res. 78 -- a Concurrent resolution of the Senate condemning the Government of Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council -- was taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred today to the Committee on International Relations.

Source: Congressional Record, "Senate bill referred", January 31, 2006, p. H19

November 20, 2005

New federal N-plant subsidies 'a bold statement' on industry's future, sez sector fund manager

Federal lawmakers have given nuclear power a nudge, ... with a raft of subsidies in the Energy Policy Act this year. "The incentives in there were a bold statement that nuclear is going to be an important part of the U.S. electricity supply in the future," said Timothy P. O'Brien, manager of the Evergreen Utility and Telecommunications fund.

[Source: Tim Gray (New York Times, Money and Business/Financial Desk), "Can Nuclear Power Become Just Another Business?", The New York Times, November 20, 2005, p. 3-5

October 7, 2005

* Nuclear medicine research - federal funding is in jeopardy, sez Rep. Moran

October 5, 2005

* 'Support for nuclear non-proliferation treaty' -- Sense of Congress resolution proposed in Warner-Levin amendment to FY2006 Defense appropriations bill

* US ICBM policy proposed in Warner-Levin amendment to FY2006 Defense appropriations bill

* Nonstrategic nuclear weapons review proposed in Warner-Levin amendment to FY2006 Defense appropriations bill

* Senate debate on nuclear weapons issues is stifled by deletion of provisions

June 14, 2005

Senate floor debate on energy bill -- nuclear.com's exclusive partitioning

* H.R. 6 brought up for Senate floor debate

* Ethanol amendment - last minute discussions before being offered

* Domenici's introductory comments in Senate floor debate on energy bill

* Sen. Nelson askes about future coastal offshore drilling colloquy

* Bingaman's introductory comments in Senate floor debate on energy bill

* Oil drilling off the coast of Florida

* List of Senate staffers to be given floor priviledge during energy bill debate

* Debate schedule discussed by Sens. Domenici and Dorgan

* Oil: Outer Continental Shelf production - no chance this bill will include new mandate, Sen. Dorgan reassures Sen. Nelson of Florida

* This is the best energy bill in decades, and bipartisan, sez Sen. Dorgan

May 25, 2005

House passes energy appropriations bill

The House passed a $29.7-billion Energy and Water appropriations bill Tuesday night by vote of 416-13. The bill provides $661-million for continued development of Yucca Mountain. And fearing further delays, the bill includes $10-million to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities. It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin accepting waste before the end of next year. The interim storage provision was opposed by lawmakers from Washington and South Carolina, two states where the waste from commercial power reactors might be located, but an amendment proposed by Rep. Markey (D-MA) to drop the interim storage funding failed 312-118.

While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases for temporary storage.

Washington and South Carolina lawmakers fear that interim facilities could end up as permanent waste repositories. They are concerned that establishing interim waste dumps might reduce pressure to open Yucca Mountain Ñ which is opposed by many in Nevada. "The state of Washington does not want to become . . . a nuclear waste dump more than we are already," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. "Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes."

The chairman of the Appropriations energy subcommittee, Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), said that he strongly supports development of the Yucca facility but that interim storage is needed because of the delays. He said the government faces an estimated $500 million to $1-billion in additional liability costs for every year the government fails to accept waste. By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking commercial used reactor fuel in 1998.

Other notable provisions in the bill
* $62-million for oil and gas research programs -- programs which Bush administration urged to be phased out because industry already "has the financial incentives and resources" to develop new technologies without taxpayer subsidies.
* $450-million cut from Bush administration's proposed nuclear weapons budget. The White House said the cut threatens the ability to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without underground testing. The bill shifted that $450-million to the president's $6 billion request for environmental cleanup at heavily polluted sites used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
* $4.7-billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, most of it devoted to waterways, dams and flood control projects. That is $414-million more than requested by President Bush but $294-million less than current funding.

[Source: Andrew Taylor (AP) and Jerry Spangler (Deseret Morning News), "House OKs a study of nuclear sites; Bishop is hopeful clarification keeps waste out of Utah", Deseret Morning News, May 25, 2005]

May 5, 2005

National Center For Combating Terrorism - thanks

An NNSA employee, Deborah Monette, was praised by Rep. Porter for spearheading critical counterterrorism initiatives for our country. He highlighted her role in creating the National Center For Combating Terrorism at the Nevada test site. The center is an intensive, hands-on training ground where Federal, State and local agencies and employees involved in combating terrorism can train for the wars of the future. It was established to provide a realistic test and evaluation laboratory for first responders.

[Source: Rep. Jon C. Porter (R-Nevada), "Public Service Recognition Week--Deborah Monette", Congressional Record, May 5, 2005, pp. H3031-H3032]

Los Alamos management - House Hearings

A subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing to "Review Ongoing Management Concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory". Testimony was heard from the following officials of the Department of Energy: Gregory Friedman, Inspector General; Michael Kilpatrick, Director of Independent Oversight, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance; and Jerry Paul, Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration; and A. J. Eggenberger, Acting Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

"It is trendy now to try to tag a particular person or group but quite frankly management that occurred is a byproduct of many years of atrophy in seeking excellence in expectations," said Jerry Paul, NNSA principal deputy administrator. "We've got the best science in the world there. There's a standard of excellence when it comes to science. The toughest problems resolved by man on the face of the earth happen on that plot of land by these great Americans and they've done so for over six decades. But in terms of the management and the culture of compliance, we haven't quite gotten to that standard of excellence."

[Source: nuclear.com compilation, Los Alamos Culture, Management Still a Concern, May 8, 2005]

Nonproliferation is SMART, sez Rep. Woolsey; part of better way than our current dangerous pattern of invading countries

Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-California) proposes a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism, and will reintroduce the SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century next week. Amongst other aspects, she emphasizes strategic focus on nonproliferation, "rather than the buildup of new nuclear weapons like the bunker-buster bomb".

[Source: Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-California), "Smart security and mission unaccomplished", Congressional Record, May 5, 2005, pp. H3033-H3034]

Winning the Cold War reduced threat of nuclear annihilation, but other threats emerged

The defense authorization bill increased end strength of 20,000 for the Army and 3,000 for the Marine Corps. It also authorized an additional 10,000 Army and 6,000 Marines to be added in the next 5 years. "This expansion", says Rep. Schiff (D-California) "is a beginning. The administration and Congress, though, need to take steps to increase the size of our Armed Forces by a far more substantial amount." Adding 25,000 a year is one recommendation he cites. Adding 90,000 total is another.

[Source: Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-California), "America's armed forces: stretched to the limit", Congressional Record, May 5, 2005, pp. H3032-H3033]

Iraq - cleaning up the mess

Rep. Obey (D-Wisconsin) regrets that he has no choice but to vote for the emergency supplemental appropriations, necessary to clean up the mess created "by the the same people who erroneously told us that we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it was implied that they had, or were close to having, nuclear capability." Adding, "That was all demonstrated not to be true." He also decries the resistance of the Bush Administration to controlling our borders, especially the Canadian border. And he promises to adopt the Republican practice of including nongermaine legislation in must-pass bills: "So we will see in the coming months what the attitude of the majority is when we seek to add what we feel are legitimate efforts to strengthen appropriation bills by adding various pieces of so-called legislation to appropriation bills." nuclear.com speculates that if a Republican had characterized Democrats' offerings as "so-called legislation", as he did, he'd be protesting that.

[Source: Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wisconsin), "Conference Report on H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005", floor debate, Congressional Record, May 5, 2005, p. H3006]

Real ID Act - one of the 'Federal purposes' of ID is entry into nuclear plants

Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) summarizes what he calls the sensible reforms proposed in the the Real ID Act.

[Source: Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), "Conference Report on H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005", floor debate, Congressional Record, May 5, 2005, p. H3011]

Iran - prospects for mullahs to use nuclear weapons to finish Hitler's barbaric work

Rep. Ackerman (D-New York) eloquently discusses why it is imperative that we remember the Holocaust.

[Source: Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-New York), "Holocaust Remembrance Day", Congressional Record, May 5, 2005, pp. H3040]

April 16, 2005

* Bush Prods Congress on Energy Legislation
Deb Riechmann/AP, The Guardian

President Bush prodded Congress on Saturday to pass a long-stalled national energy strategy, saying American families and small businesses are feeling the pinch from rising gasoline prices. Bush is using concern over the recent spike in fuel prices to pressure lawmakers into passing an energy bill set for a vote next week... "Today our energy needs are growing faster than our domestic sources are able to provide," Bush said. "Demand for electricity has grown more than 176 percent in the past decade, while our transmission ability lags behind. And we continue to import more than one-half of our domestic oil supply." ... In his broadcast, Bush said the nation must promote the use of safe, clean nuclear power and create more energy choices... Bush said the legislation must encourage the use of technology to improve conservation and production at home in environmentally sensitive areas. Moreover, he believes the bill must diversify the nation's energy supply by developing alternative sources of energy like ethanol or biodiesel... The House energy bill is tilted heavily toward helping traditional energy industries - mainly coal, oil and natural gas - and offers little to encourage energy efficiency. Less than $500 million in tax incentives are directed at renewable energy and efficiency programs... The House measure would boost production of corn-based ethanol, a boon to farmers, by requiring refiners to use at least 5 billion gallons a year as a gasoline additive. Although the House bill is focused in the long term on diversifying the nation's energy supply and increasing production, it is not likely to provide immediate relief at the pump... Democrats have criticized the measure for failing to deal with gas-guzzling automobiles. They also oppose drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge - an item that likely would be left out of the Senate's energy bill because it would attract a Democratic-led filibuster and could jeopardize passage of the legislation.

* Crapo to offer bill for victims of testing: First he wants to see federal fallout study
Dan Boyd, Idaho State Journal (Pocatello ID)

The Radiation Compensation Exposure Act pays $50,000 to those exposed to harmful radiation during a series of above-ground atomic weapons testing in the Nevada desert in the 1950s. Currently only Utah, Arizona and Nevada counties are included, but a 1997 study indicated the four Idaho counties have among the highest radioactive iodine levels in the nation. And in southeast Idaho, many residents have come forward who believe that they, too, were exposed to the radiation and later contracted cancer as a result. Last Friday, Sen. Mike Crapo sent a letter to the director of the Board on Radiation Effects Research. It said he is committed to introducing legislation in Congress on behalf of the so-called Downwinders, a group that believes they were exposed to harmful radiation as children as a result of atomic testing in Nevada. A report by the Board, which will make recommendations on whether Idaho counties should be included in the federal Radiation Compensation Exposure Act, was supposed to be released in March. Now well into April, it's still under wraps. Crapo said the study is "pivotal" in determining whether only four Idaho counties - Gem, Custer, Lemhi and Custer - are included in the legislation or whether the scope is expanded. In his letter, Crapo said he also expects the report to show that other counties should be included. "There wouldn't be anything served by introducing (legislation) now," he said. "We're just kind of in a holding pattern."

March 14, 2005

Why we'll see an energy bill passed this year

Both our bitter enemies and our untrustworthy friends are rolling in lucre now that crude is over $50 a barrel. Iran will reap oil revenues of about $71 billion this year if prices remain at or above current levels, versus $56.9 billion when oil is at $40 a barrel, says John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute. Saudi Arabia will take in $164 billion at the current price, instead of $131 billion at $40 a barrel. Americans inadvertently contribute to the windfall every time we pull our cars up to the gas pump-and that bitter irony will soon prod Congress to finally pass an energy bill.

President Bush has been promoting an energy policy since his first term, and he's chatting it up again, between pitches for Social security reform. Until now, the sticking point has been his call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a sacred place for environmentalists. The caribou lovers argue that oil from the refuge won't reduce our dependence on Mideast oil-and will ruin the last pristine corner of Alaska. Democrats who court the environmentalists have been able to stall the energy package in past years with filibusters in the Senate. The Alaska refuge won't be a factor in this year's energy bill because Republicans are using some legislative legerdemain: They've shifted the refuge question to a budget bill. Democrat senators opposed to the plan now can't stop it with a filibuster because rules governing the budget debate ban such moves. The upshot: The House will move on an energy bill in April. The bill, which is favored by Bush, will promote alternative energy sources, such as nuclear reactors, liquefied natural gas and clean coal. The Senate, meanwhile, is trying to draft a bipartisan bill emphasizing conservation. Republicans are open to higher miles-per-gallon standards for new vehicles, which may not sit well in horsepower-happy Detroit. Bush wants the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set mileage standards because he thinks its experts can best balance the needs for fuel efficiency and jobs.
[Source: Jim McTague, "At Last, an Energy Bill", Barron's (Chicopee MA), March 14, 2005, p. 28]

December 13, 2004

* Group to watch White House
Benjamin Grove, Las Vegas SUN

May 20, 2004

* Yucca Mountain faces 85% budget cut - $131 million instead of $880 million for 2005 possible

March 27, 2004

Americans don't want new generation of n-weapons, sez Sen. Feinstein

Republicans and Democrats are signaling even tougher scrutiny than last year of administration plans for a powerful nuclear weapon to threaten foreign adversaries hiding in underground bunkers with a single, regime-toppling strike.

The administration's $6.6 billion spending proposal for nuclear weapons research and maintenance is coming under unusually rigorous attack early in an election year, and not from the rambunctious House but a less expected quarter, the ordinarily staid Senate. "Your problem is going to be holding on to what you already have," Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid warned the nation's top nuclear-weapons executive, Linton Brooks. Brooks' deputy was at a loss to explain the bipartisan resistance. "There's definitely more intensity, more controversy -- no question," said deputy National Nuclear Security administrator Ev Beckner.

In recent months, Brooks and Beckner have shuttled around Capitol Hill to stave off attacks on multiple Bush initiatives -- $27 million for the new bunker buster, $9 million for "advanced" weapons designing teams, $30 million to shorten the time to a nuclear test, plans for a plutonium bomb-component factory and a delay in hydrogen fusion experiments on Livermore's $4 billion National Ignition Facility until 2014.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested creating "weapons systems that are so bizarre and so catastrophic goes beyond the moral code." "I'm going to oppose it at every step of the road because I do not believe the American people want to support a new generation of nuclear weapons," she said.

[Source: Ian Hoffman (staff writer, ANG Newspapers), "Bush's laser, bunker buster under attack from Senate; Feinstein vows to oppose 'bizarre' weapons at 'every step of the road'", Oakland Tribune, March 27, 2004]

NIF turns to plan B for ignition by 2010, after Sen. Dominici pans proposed slippage to 2014

Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations subcommittee chairman Dominici threatened this week to shut down the world's largest laser if the Bush administration falters in creating a miniature sun inside a California laboratory. In recent months, Linton Brooks (the nation's top nuclear-weapons executive) and Ev Beckner (deputy National Nuclear Security administrator) have shuttled around Capitol Hill to stave off attacks on multiple Bush initiatives -- including a delay in hydrogen fusion experiments on Livermore's $4 billion National Ignition Facility until 2014. The delay caught the attention of the four committees overseeing nuclear weapons spending, especially the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations subcommittee.

As nuclear-weapons spending soared to levels 50 percent higher than the Cold War average, two administrations have relied on the panel's chairman, Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), to carry their case in the Senate and in spending negotiations with his House counterparts. St. Pete, as Domenici is fondly known in three weapons labs, is the latest in a dynasty of nuclear purse-string holders from the high-desert state where nuclear weapons were invented.

Since 1996, Domenici poked a critical finger at the giant laser on several occasions but always preserved its budget, even in the face of a $2 billion cost overrun and substantial drain on pet projects at the two weapons labs in Domenici's own state. The sacrifice, the senator made clear this week, was for one reason: to realize after more than 40 years the dream of controlled thermonuclear-fusion -- the creation of a momentary sun -- inside a lab.

"You know how I feel right now is that I've been hoodwinked," Domenici told executives of the National Nuclear Security Administration on Tuesday. "And not a little hoodwink. Big one." If Livermore's stadium-sized National Ignition Facility simply becomes the world's greatest laser research facility and doesn't actually achieve ignition -- that is, harvest more energy from hydrogen fusion than the electricity in its laser beams -- then, Domenici said, no more money will flow its way. "And I tell you, if I see that coming, it (the laser lab) better not be asking me for any money, because I'd close it down, because that's not fair," Domenici said. "We never intended to spend $5 billion to $6 billion to build a laser facility or a laboratory that would provide civilian research and visitations from around the world."

Beckner assured Domenici that a recent technical advance -- and the emphatic objections of all four congressional committees -- had made it possible to shoot for ignition in 2010. "They made sure that we understood," Beckner said Friday.

Originally, scientists planned on fusing hydrogen gases frozen solid inside spheres of plastic or beryllium. But their plan required designing and building a cryogenic robot to carry the frozen target from a filling lab into the laser's target chamber, maintaining it at subzero temperatures. Rough estimates suggest the scheme would cost at least $100 million and scientists aren't certain it will succeed. In order to try for ignition in 2010, Beckner said, they are reaching for a backup plan to pump the gases into the sphere through a straw about a tenth of a hair's width and freeze it inside the target chamber. "We have very good target designs there. The complication is in the experimental realization," Beckner said. Which is to say, no one has built such a target, nor filled it, frozen it and crushed it with X-rays driven by laser beams. "We have a higher level of risk associated with this. But in view of the importance of getting earlier results, we will change those priorities," he said.

Project critics have seen the promised date of ignition slip from 2003 to 2008 to 2010 to 2014 and now back to 2010 with a novel target. Some plan to lobby Congress for an investigation of the laser's ability to meet its promise of ignition. "The idea that at this late date that they still are designing the target for which they designed the entire facility is indicative of what's wrong with the entire project," said Chris Paine, a senior nuclear weapons analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

[Source: Ian Hoffman (staff writer, ANG Newspapers), "Bush's laser, bunker buster under attack from Senate; Feinstein vows to oppose 'bizarre' weapons at 'every step of the road'", Oakland Tribune, March 27, 2004]

March 18, 2004

* Pakistan - US mistreatment led to its n-sales, and paltry current US aid risks worse

* US terrorism incubator, says Rep. Owens - half of NYC black males are unemployed

* Bush Administration lies, including about Iraq WMD, warrant independent counsel, says Rep. Nadler

* Iraq Intervention Benefits: Libya, North Korea, Pakistan/India, says Rep. Foley

* Cleanup of n-legacy sites - Bush has cut 35 years from schedule and saved $50-billion in costs

* NNSA challenges - restoring defense nuclear capabilities, certifying stockpile, security

* N-weapons expected to remain cornerstone of US national security posture

* N-weapon stockpile - verifying safety and effectiveness is more important than ever as #s go down

October 17, 2003

Iraq - prewar WMD intelligence was exactly as described by Clinton, Albright and Berger in 1998, sez Sen. Bond

Mr. BOND (p. S12778)
... the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [(Mr. Corzine) said] that the [prewar WMD] intelligence was faith based. He insinuated that intelligence had been changed somehow perhaps by the administration. Let me first point out that this intelligence has been acted upon by previous administrations.

I quote from President Clinton, 1998: 'If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, February 18, 1998: 'Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.'

Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, same day: 'He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.'

- excerpted from Senate floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iran - emboldened, can dash any hopes of modernizing Arab world, sez Sen. Biden

Mr. BIDEN (p. S12785)
... there are bookends around a little country called Iran, with 40 million people, which is seeking a nuclear weapon. It is now run by an oligarchy made up of ayatollahs who control the military and all the security apparatus. You have a failed state on your east and a failed state on your west. You have an incredibly emboldened Iran. Kiss goodbye modernity--the fancy word we like to use for modernizing the Arab world. Kiss goodbye democracy. We cannot afford to let Afghanistan fail.

- excerpted from Senate floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - US deception undermines future ability to sound alarm based on intelligence, sez van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (p. H9669)
... The Administration's misleading statements about the nature and magnitude of the Iraqi threat have undermined our credibility around the world. Secretary of State Powell's report to the United Nations prior to the war relied on forged documents and information we later admitted to be unreliable. The nuclear specter that Administration officials pointed to has been discredited. Even more recently, Administration Inspector David Kay has been forced to back down from post-war claims that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were used for making biological weapons. The huge credibility gap that now exists for the Administration undermines our future ability to sound the alarm based on sensitive intelligence matters. Future claims about Iran, North Korea and others will be viewed with deep suspicion by a more skeptical public and an international community that, as the Economist described, sees the Bush Administration as having its own arsenal of WMD -- 'Wielders of Mass Deception.'

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - bring in UN inspectors, for credibility, sez Rep. van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (pp. H9632-3)
... The President should immediately invite the existing team of United Nations' inspectors--known as UNMOVIC--to participate in the search for WMD in Iraq. The U.N. has a pool of inspectors who have 12 years of experience investigating Iraq's programs and many of whom speak Arabic. According to its most recent report, UNMOVIC has a roster of 354 trained experts available to serve in Iraq at short notice. This important resource should be put to use, allowing us to reduce the size and costs of our team of inspectors.

What would it cost us to engage these trained experts? Nothing. The costs of UNMOVIC are borne by the United Nations and paid for through the dues of the member nations.

Engaging the U.N. weapons inspectors in the search for WMD would also get us something that money can't buy--credibility. With respect to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration has lost its credibility with the American people and has undermined American credibility in the international community. Before the war, our Secretary of State told the United Nations that the Iraqis were attempting to import nuclear weapons material from Africa. The U.N. inspectors reviewed the evidence and determined the claims were based on forged documents. The U.S. conceded the point and, worse, it turns out that agencies within the U.S. government had already questioned the veracity of the documents. Our Secretary of Defense told the world that we knew the location of the weapons of mass destruction. We now know that was untrue. In the aftermath of the war, the President claimed that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were evidence of a biological weapons program. Our inspection team has recently had to retreat from that claim. Again and again, Administration officials from the President on down have made false claims about Iraqi WMD. Even the Economist magazine, which had been a booster of the war, has stated that the Bush Administration is seen around the world as having its own arsenal of WMD--Wielders of Mass Deception.

The only way to restore confidence in the search for WMD is to bring in an impartial team of international inspectors. David Kay, the leader of our team, is stuck in a fundamental contradiction. He wears two hats, serving as both fact finder and salesman for the Administration. No matter how high his personal integrity, this dual role undermines the credibility of any findings his team may make.

It is critical to the integrity of the process that independent U.N. weapons inspectors be invited to participate in the search and given the opportunity to independently evaluate any claims made by David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group. The American people should not be asked to spend an additional $600 million to fund a search that is widely perceived to be an effort to provide cover for an Administration that has lost its credibility on this issue at home and abroad.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - search for WMD is now obsession to save face, sez Rep. Paul

Mr. PAUL (p. H9684)
... what if you do find something? What does it prove? Does it prove that he was a threat to our national security? No way. Does it prove that it was a relationship to Iraq and 9/11? No way. So this obsession is for saving face and nothing more. If there was a major nuclear or chemical weapon available that was about to be unleashed against us, it would have surely been found by now, but that was not debated, but I am sure that search will go on, and "when something is found," and I put that in quotes, there will be a lot of questions asked. More questions will be asked than answers given.

- excerpted from special order speech titled "Misguided Policy of Nation Building in Iraq", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - the mushroom clouds we feared were only vapors of the mind, sez Sen. Byrd

Mr. BYRD (p. S12800)
... We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen... We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy 'yellow cake' from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air. We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

- excerpted from Senate floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - prewar WMD risks were exaggerated by Bush administration, sez Sen. Leahy

Mr. LEAHY (p. S12824)
... The administration said, over and over, that the reason we had to invade Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction. The Vice President said, 'We believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons,' although there was apparently virtually no evidence to support that.

But after blaming the United Nations inspectors for being duped, and after months of searching without any interference, the administration has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. And now, as reported in the press, they want to spend another $600 million to continue the search.

Not long ago, the Secretary of State said the weapons were the chemical weapons used against the Kurds in 1988, before the first gulf war. The gassing of the Kurds was a horrific war crime, but as much as I respect the Secretary, it is absurd, and contrary to everything we were told a year ago, to use an atrocity of 15 years ago to justify a pre-emptive war.

- excerpted from Senate floor speech on "Passage of S. 1689" during debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - horrible misjudgements every step of the way, sez Rep. Hastings of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (p. H9649)
... at this point it is critical to take some of the control away from the people who have made horrible misjudgments at every step of the way, who misled the American people and the Congress about the need for war, and who ignored warnings from inside and outside the administration. Either they knew the truth, chose to mislead us, or they did not take the time to adequately assess and plan for the true situation. Either way, senior members of this administration were not doing their jobs.

That is why before any appropriations are sent to rebuild Iraq, the Congress and the American people need to see an independent investigation in progress, looking deeply into several questions: whether U.S. intelligence reports were manipulated in order to misrepresent the threat Saddam Hussein posed to American interests; whether the costs and dangers of invading and occupying Iraq were deliberately understated; whether American officials who offered differing views of Iraq became the victims of inappropriate or illegal retaliation; and whether one or more individuals within the administration is or are responsible for the leak of classified information regarding intelligence reports and the veracity of accounts as to the purchase of 'yellowcake' for nuclear weapons production.

If any of these allegations are proved true, those responsible must be held accountable. I am concerned that there has been a methodical and undemocratic effort to mislead and intimidate the American people and the world in order to march us into this war. And now we are being given an $87 billion bill to pay for that effort.

As we move forward in Iraq, unfortunately, we have severely limited options. Because people like Secretary Rumsfeld have used reckless speech that has angered and exasperated our allies, many of our most staunch allies are now reluctant to get involved in stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq. While our State Department has been reaching out around the world with a hand of cooperation and partnership, Mr. Rumsfeld has proudly displayed his arrogance and disdain for anyone not walking lockstep with him.

Too much is at stake to distance ourselves from those whose help we need. People from democracies around the world are now being asked to trust this administration with the lives of their sons and daughters in the military, by sending them to fight under a U.S. command whose leaders show them blatant disrespect. They are being encouraged to send their hard-earned money to reconstruct Iraq under the authority of this administration that gives the largest contracts to its political supporters, that seems to have no credible plan for the future, and that ignores the advice of even the most trusted experts on the world stage. It is not surprising that they are not stepping up with money and troops.

I think the problem is basically a lack of trust. I can't blame them. I do not trust this administration to do the right thing in Iraq either. I do not intend to vote to send another dime to Iraq until the President takes some dramatic steps to restore credibility to his Administration:

First, I want to see new faces in top positions, starting with Donald Rumsfeld. We need people who choose integrity over politics and respect over arrogance...

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 3289, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq did not pose clear and present danger, sez Rep. Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR (p. H9667)
... Last year, Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by approving a deeply-flawed resolution that gave the President the power to initiate a preemptive war against Iraq, which, in my judgment, expressed at that time, did not pose a clear and present danger to the United States. I opposed that resolution in the strong belief that Congress should have required the President to seek a formal declaration of war because the President had failed to demonstrate a link between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, failure to prove the presence in Iraq of chemical, biological weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear capability, or the capacity to deliver such weapons against the United States.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

Iraq - the two fundamental rationales for war were false, sez van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (p. H9669)
... Six months ago, the President informed the American people that Saddam Hussein posed such a dangerous threat to the Untied States that we had to wage war in Iraq to protect our national security. The President and his advisors sold the Iraq war to the American people primarily based on the argument that Saddam Hussein was a ticking time bomb; that he posed a serious and growing danger to America; and that the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate Saddam Hussein.

The Administration's argument was based on the marriage of two claims. The first was the claim that Iraq possessed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and would soon obtain a nuclear weapons capability. The second was the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda. Taken together, these claims painted a very ominous picture. While many in the international community--and here at home-- had strong doubts about the nature, magnitude and imminence of the threat posed by Saddam, in its rush to war, the Administration exploited the fears of a post 9/11 America. They portrayed the United Nations Security Council, the U.N. weapons inspectors, most of the international community, and critics here at home as a bunch of spineless procrastinators who wanted to look the other way in the face of a growing Iraqi threat.

It now appears that the Administration's two most fundamental arguments for war were false. After interviewing hundreds of former Iraqi military personnel and allowing more than 1,200 of our own inspectors to roam across Iraq over the last six months, we have failed to uncover any actual weapons of mass destruction. The interim report submitted by Dr. David Kay, the Administration's own arms inspector, provides no hard evidence to support the kind of danger President Bush depicted when he made the case for immediate military action. In the absence of evidence of actual weapons, U.S. officials have shifted their rhetoric to focus on ``weapons programs'' and ``the intent'' of the pre-war Iraqi regime. And while it may be true that Iraq was not in full compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, it also appears that the sanctions regime, coupled with the inspectors deployed under Resolution 1441, was successful at containing Iraq's ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Time has also not borne out the Administration's claim that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein. There is no credible evidence of any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This argument, made over the objections of many in the intelligence community and most regional experts in this town, was a calculated effort to establish a false link in the minds of the American people between the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the need to go to war in Iraq. This strategy of fear was not based on the facts, but on a desire to do whatever it would take to win public support for the war.

It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. However, the security threat he posed to the United States was grossly exaggerated by the President and his public relations gurus.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 17, 2003

October 16, 2003

Iraq CBN WMD - Kay team has uncovered 95% of a smoking gun, sez Rep. Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY (p. H9551)
... David Kay recently issued a statement that his team has indeed found substantial evidence that Iraq had many programs hidden from view to produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and had active illegal programs to deliver them using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. I believe this is 95 percent of a smoking gun.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003, p.

Terror and WMD relegates one John Adams' notion obsolete, that "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy", sez Rep. Feeney

Mr. FEENEY (p. H9567)
... I remember in Washington's first farewell address, he warned all of us about entering into "entangling alliances" oversees. The second President of the United States, John Adams, said "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." But on September 11, all of us recognized that this is a much smaller world, because monsters found America and tried to destroy us, and they are going to do it again. The next attack could be from a vial of nerve gas, a nuclear weapon, a chemical or other biological weapon that may be built in the hills of Afghanistan or the deserts of Iraq. We understand that. We recognize that, and we fully support the prosecution of the war.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003, p.

Laugh of the day*: Rep. McDermott proposes adding asterisks to 2003 State of Union speech in the permanent Congressional Record

Mr. McDERMOTT, "Question of Privileges of the House",
Congressional Record, October 16, 2003, p H9509

Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution correcting the Record of Tuesday, January 28, 2003.

Resolved, That an asterisk be placed in the permanent Record of Tuesday, January 28, 2003, noting that the following statements contained in the State of the Union Address by the President of the United States are inaccurate:

One, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Two, "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Three, "From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspections sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Four, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.".

* nuclear.com is sympathetic to expanding this idea. How about putting asterisk next to Rep. McDermott's votes against impeachment, and those stonewalling fellow travelers of his in the Senate too. After all, it seems quite unusual that the fellow who was deemed unfit to practice law in the State of Arkansas was considered fit enough to keep finger on the nuclear button.

VP Cheney admits he was wrong about Iraq having nuclear capability, sez Rep. Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia (p. H9536)
... We were told by the Vice President that they had nuclear capability. Now, he admits he misspoke. That is not acceptable. This is a bad precedent.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003, p.

Iraq policy lies and miscalculations stir up 'the ghosts of Vietnam' in Congress, sez Rep. Pastor

Mr. PASTOR, Arizona (p. H9516)
... this administration misinformed the American people and misinformed this Congress for the reasons to go to Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear plan, the chemicals, the biological, we have yet to see any of that. Yet, he continues to tell us a story that is not true. This administration miscalculated what we would do in Iraq. He said that we would be seen as liberators and, in fact, to date, Mr. Chairman, they see us as invaders. I believe that this administration and the policy it has towards Iraq and its construction is misguided. The plan right now, if there is a plan, is not working. The ghosts of Vietnam are around this Congress and this city.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003

Bush and Cheney fooled me on Iraq nukes and imminent threat, sez Rep. Waxman, but 'I won't make that mistake again'

Mr. WAXMAN (p. H9519)
... I voted for the Iraq resolution last year. I relied on the President's representations about the imminent threat Iraq posed to the United States. And I relied on the statements that other senior administration officials, including the Vice President, made regarding Iraq's nuclear capability. I will not make that same mistake again. They have squandered their credibility and the normal deference we give to any administration, Democratic or Republican.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003

Iraq - nuke threat was justification for war, and it has evaporated, sez Sen. Leahy

Mr. LEAHY (p. S12650)
... The justification for the war, that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having nuclear weapons, has evaporated... Did he have nuclear weapons? Of course not.

- excerpted from Senate floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003

Iraq - trumped-up reasons for war have collapsed, including n-weapons, sez Sen Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY (p. S12638)
... The trumped-up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as "double-talk." The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al-Qaida. It was not... Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one...

- excerpted from floor speech on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003

Preemption doctrine has accellerated proliferation, such as by Korea, sez Rep. Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT (p. H9546)
... the President's continued articulation of the so-called 'preemption doctrine' and his lack of a coherent diplomatic strategy has inspired other nations not to stop their pursuit of dangerous materials, but to accelerate their efforts in order to avoid being 'preempted.' North Korea -- which today appears to be ramping up for full-scale production of nuclear weapons -- is a very troubling case in point.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003, p.

Unilateralism, including failure to ratify Nuclear Test Ban treaty, is destructive, sez Rep. Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN (p. H9550)
... Many around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has taken in the world arena. I share their concern. We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, our failure to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty. We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO are heard throughout the world community. Calling longtime allies "Old Europe" is terribly counterproductive. The war in Iraq is seen against this larger backdrop. I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We should be builders rather than destroyers.

- excerpted from House floor debate on "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004", Congressional Record, October 16, 2003, p.

September 4, 2003

* Nuclear power's critics - overview of their reasoning

August 7, 2003

* Congress - Energy Bill conference may not add loan guarantee back in

August 6, 2003

* Congress - Energy Bill Conference Committee expected to begin in September

August 1, 2003

* Domenici Energy Reforms Shelved; Senate OKs Older Bingaman Measure
Michael Coleman (Journal Washington Bureau), Albuquerque Journal, p. A9 (subscription required) --
Sen. Daschle suggested the switch in Thursday morning floor debate, and the majority was happy to comply. Sen. Domenici is quoted as telling reporters that "We're going to conference, and the reason I'm happy is because I'll be rewriting that bill." He also noted that this is "not how I envisioned getting an energy bill".

* Rushed Senate helps gas line; ENERGY BILL: Last year's version, with incentives for project, passes
Liz Ruskin, Anchorage Daily News, p. A1
Sen. Domenici said the big victory is that the Democrats stopped blocking passage of an energy bill. What it actually says doesn't really matter, he said, because it can all be changed in the conference committee. "We'll write a completely different bill," Domenici promised. A final decision to abandon this year's in favor of last year's Senate energy bill came at a meeting of Republican senators, most of whom had concluded that otherwise the issue was dead at least until later this year or next. Sen. Daschle said "They made us an offer we couldn't refuse."

* U.S. Senate passes old Democratic version of energy plan
Andy Sher (Washington Bureau), Chattanooga Times Free Press, p. A1 (subscription required)
More choice quotes:
* Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): "I would call this the Lazarus Energy Bill. It was on its death bed this morning and has passed tonight. [What the energy legislation ultimately] means to the average American is enormously significant. It increases the likelihood that there will be natural gas from Alaska that will lower the price of heating homes. It increases the likelihood that there will be new nuclear power plants that will keep prices of electricity low and will clean the air in the Tennessee Valley better than what we're doing today."
* Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): "In our fondest dreams we never thought we'd be able to pass a Democratic bill in a Republican Congress"
* Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM): "The reason I'm happy is I'm rewriting that bill"

June 15, 2003

* Exelon considering ESP for another plant at Clinton site

* Loan guarantees - if taxpayers accepting risk, they should share in profits, too

* N-power - political tide is turning, via President Bush and Congress

June 10, 2003

"For the first time in modern history, between the two bodies we will adopt a very pro-nuclear policy for the United States." That's Sen Domenici talking, at press conference after the loan guarantee provision in Senate energy bill narrowly survived floor fight. Although the House version doesn't include a similar provision, the Senator said he believes the bill that comes out of House-Senate conference will include the loan guarantees. In another venue today, the Senator said "I predict we will one day look back and wonder what took us so long to realize the promise nuclear energy offers us."

June 3, 2003

* N-Power: "Clean, cheap, abundant. And needed", sez Rep. Wamp (R-TN)

May 19, 2003

Mini-nukes might restore deterrant value, which is pretty nil for current arsenal in many cases

"The current nuclear arsenal is no longer an effective deterrent. Washington's enemies, Pentagon officials say, calculate that the U.S. won't use its existing nuclear weapons because of the widespread carnage they would cause." House and Senate Armed Services Committees have voted to rescind the ban on mini-nuke R&D, and full chambers may vote as early as next week. Lots of arguments on this Bush administration-backed project. [Source: Mark Thompson, Bush's New Nuclear Push, TIME, May 26, 2003]

May 18, 2003

Govt has long meddled in electricity economics; N-plant provisions aren't nearly unprecedented

"The notion of government investment in the electricity infrastructure is not new. Rural electrification in the 1930's was made possible by a legislated 2 percent interest rate. What you regard as an unenlightened commitment of resources today could tomorrow prove to be a brilliant act of social foresight." [Source: Larry R. Foulke (president-elect, American Nuclear Society), "The Senate Energy Bill",letter to editor of New York Times, published May 18, 2003, sect. 4, p. 12]

May 13, 2003

Default risk exaggerated by CBO, industry sez

In the CBO cost estimate of the Senate energy bill released last week, CBO predicted a "very high" default risk -- "well above 50 percent" -- on the proposed loan guarantee program.

NEI President Joe Colvin wrote to Sen. Domenici that CBO's findings on the bill's nuclear energy loan guarantee provisions "do serious injustice to this sound policy initiative in your legislation.

"The CBO finding defies logic and assumes that a private company knows in advance that a new nuclear power plant is too costly ever to be economic," Colvin wrote. "If that were the case, no amount of federal loan guarantee would make it economic, and no company would go forward with such a project."

CBO based its conclusion on EIA's 2003 Annual Energy Outlook, which said electricity from new nuclear power plants would not be cost competitive with other power generation resources until after 2025. EIA projected that a new nuclear power plant built after 2011 could cost about $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity, which is significantly higher than the estimated $536 per kilowatt of capacity for natural gas plants and $1,367 per kilowatt of capacity for coal-steam technology.

"Because the cost of power from the first of the next generation of new nuclear power plants would likely be significantly above prevailing market rates, we would expect that the plant operators would default on the borrowing that financed its capital costs," CBO said.

But Colvin countered that such a scenario is not credible. "Private companies will proceed with new nuclear power project and request federal loan guarantees to support financing of those projects only if they are confident that the projects can be economic, produce electric power at competitive rates and provide a reasonable return on investment," he wrote.

Colvin said CBO's finding had no factual basis, adding that EIA "has an extensive record of using incorrect data and flawed analysis in its forecasting on nuclear energy issues." For example, he said a 2002 industry study found that the cost to build a new nuclear plant after 2011 would be less than $1,400 per kilowatt.

"Facts bounced off the EIA like bullets bounce off an elephant," said Richard Meyer, NEI director of business and environmental policy. "It is impervious to any input."

[Source: Suzanne Struglinski (Greenwire reporter), "Nuclear Industry Takes Issue With CBO Score Of Energy Bill", Greenwire, May 13, 2003]

May 12, 2003

The New York Times doesn't see much to like about the energy bills progressing through House and Senate this year. Particular disdain was voiced about the nuclear power provisions, although the Times does point to "the problem of global warming" as sort of recommending nuclear. Here's how they put it: "Apart from making an expensive and chancy bet on nuclear power, [the Senate bill] would do next to nothing to address the problem of global warming." The editorial elaborates: "...a huge $30 billion subsidy for nuclear power, a favorite of the new chairman of the Senate energy committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico. For many reasons, not least the fact that nuclear energy is economically uncompetitive with most other forms of power, the nuclear industry has not licensed and built a new plant for nearly 30 years. Mr. Domenici seeks to jump-start a new generation of plants with federal guarantees that even his pro-nuclear allies regard as excessively generous." [Source: The New York Times, (Editorial) "An Empty Energy Bill", May 12, 2003, p. A24]
nuclear.com doesn't have a clue as to whom the Times thinks is pro-nuclear who believes there's the slightest chance that the loan guarantees will ever cost the taxpayers a dime. The doom-and-gloomers point to WPPSS as if some analog of that bond default might occur under Domenici plan. But it's hard to imagine how such circumstances could recur. The WPPSS default of bonds associated with projects 4 and 5 in 1983 was the result of a state court ruling that local power authorities didn't have to pay WPPSS for power they had promised to buy but no longer needed.

May 9, 2003

Senate committee votes to repeal ban on low-yield n-weapon R&D

A Senate committee said it has voted to lift a decade-old ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons... The Armed Services Committee agreed to lift the ban as part of a bill authorizing $400.5 billion in 2004 defense activities. The measure was approved in closed session on Thursday, and details were released yesterday... Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the committee, said: "Without committing to deployment, research on low-yield nuclear weapons is a prudent step to safeguard America from emerging threats and enemies." The bill now goes to the full Senate. The House Armed Services Committee is expected to complete its version of the bill next week. The committee's strategic forces panel on Wednesday backed the lifting of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research.

Low-yield nuclear weapons have warheads of less than five kilotons -- about a third of the explosive force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. Combined with precision missiles, such weapons could be used to hit a target without causing as much damage to surrounding areas as other nuclear weapons would.

Senate Democrats argued that a repeal would damage U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms. "This is a major shift in American policy," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the panel's top Democrat. "It just sort of makes a mockery of our argument around the world that other countries -- India, Pakistan -- should not test and North Korea and Iran should not obtain." Warner said the committee was assured by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that lifting the research and development ban would not affect nuclear proliferation. "America has had a ban on this research since 1993, yet that has done nothing to stop other countries from seeking to acquire nuclear weapons," Warner said.

Opponents of the repeal also question whether these weapons are needed, given the force of the U.S. conventional arsenal. Some fear that the availability of these weapons would make presidents less reluctant to use nuclear weapons in war.

[Source: Associated Press, "Ending Research Ban On Low-Yield Nuclear Arms Backed by Panel", Washington Post, May 10, 2003, p. A2]

Update (added May 12): ... the non-nuclear bunker-buster used in Iraq was more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and was more than adequate in destroying subterranean weapons vaults. [Source: Rock Hill Herald (South Carolina), editorial, "Don't reignite arms race", May 12, 2003, p. 7A]

May 4, 2003

"[E]nergy legislation expected to clear the Senate within the next few weeks would provide federal loan guarantees for up to half the cost of building as many as six new nuclear power plants", according to today's LA Times. The loan guarantee was not in the energy bill that passed the House, but the provision may well be part of the bill eventually reported out of conference between House and Senate. The provision would fit in well with President Bush's goal to build new electric generating capacity using nuclear. Another provision in the Senate bill that advances the President's policy is a $1-billion demonstration plant -- an advanced reactor in Idaho for producing hydrogen.
[Source: Richard Simon (LA Times staff writer), "Energy Industry Sees Its Fortunes Turning in Capital", Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2003, p. 32]

April 12, 2003

Supplemental appropriations conference report

The House and Senate conference report for supplemental FY2003 appropriations was published in today's Congressional Record. It includes a variety of sections explicitly mentioning things nuclear, such as

* $2-million "to conduct vulnerability assessments for spent nuclear fuel casks",

* $90-million "for portal radiation detection and monitoring technology and non-intrusive inspection technology" to be used in controlling borders and by customs

* $84-million "to develop and deploy radiation detectors at mega seaports",

* $47-million "to meet increased safeguards and security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex",

* $20-million for "secure transportation asset activities" "to safeguard nuclear weapons and nuclear material",

* $17-million to "expand efforts under the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program to secure radioactive materials that may be used to construct a radioactive dispersal device (RDD), and to develop standards for the cleanup of contamination resulting from a potential RDD event",

* $15-million to "expand nonproliferation assistance to countries other than the former Soviet Union",

* $15-million for "nuclear nonproliferation programs, including $2,500,000 for the Caucasus Seismic Network",

* $11-million for DOE science spending -- for expenses necessary to support safeguards and security of nuclear and other facilities and for other purposes,

* $5-million "for international export controls",

* $5-million "under International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation to support activities in Iraq",

* $5-million "under Nonproliferation and Verification R&D for materials and devices to detect nuclear materials",

* $6-million "for the Office of Environmental Management to meet safeguards and security requirements at its defense cleanup and waste disposal sites",

A compilation of the sections mentioning "nuclear", "radiation", or "radioactive" is available here.

NUREG-0090 vol. 25 submitted by NRC

House received NRC's "Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences, Fiscal Year 2002," with cover letter from NRC Chairman, transmitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5848. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Utah member of the 'nuclear family' honored