Energy Bill: Now With Weapons-Grade Uranium!

by hilzoy

Via a post by Russell Feingold at DKos: apparently, the energy bill that just passed both houses of Congress isn't just a shameful grab-bag of corporate welfare provisions that does next to nothing to solve our energy problems; it also weakens our nuclear non-proliferation policies. From the Washington Post:

"A provision tucked into the 1,724-page energy bill that Congress is poised to enact today would ease export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium, a lucrative victory for a Canadian medical manufacturer and its well-wired Washington lobbyists.

The Burr Amendment -- named for its sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- would reverse a 13-year-old U.S. policy banning exports of weapons-grade uranium unless the recipients agree to start converting their reactors to use less-dangerous uranium. The Senate rejected the measure last month after critics in both parties warned that it would accelerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, but a House-Senate conference committee agreed this week to include it in the final bill.

The amendment is just one of dozens of obscure special-interest provisions included in the energy bill, which the House passed yesterday and the Senate is expected to pass today. The amendment's supporters say it will ensure a steady supply of medical isotopes, which are used to diagnose and treat 14 million Americans every year, including patients afflicted with cancer, heart disease and epilepsy. But it will also be a boon to the world's leading producer of those isotopes, an Ottawa-based company called MDS Nordion, which would otherwise have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit its reactor for low-grade uranium.

Critics say the Burr Amendment will not only provide special perks for one foreign company but also encourage the proliferation that politicians in both parties have identified as a dire threat to national security in the post-Sept. 11 world. (...)

Opponents say the amendment would eliminate the financial incentives for foreign firms to switch. Since 1992, when then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) persuaded Congress to adopt the export restrictions, Argentina and several other countries have begun retrofitting reactors to use uranium that cannot be used in atomic weapons.

By contrast, Nordion already has enough highly enriched uranium to make one or two Hiroshima-size bombs, and its factories do not have to meet the same security standards as Energy Department facilities. It initially agreed to convert to low-grade uranium, but its executives changed their minds and helped finance a fierce lobbying campaign to loosen the restrictions."

Ah, yes: a fierce lobbying campaign. For loosening export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium. How delightful.

""It really is amazing," said Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "To get something as outrageous as this, that's skillful lobbying."

Since 2003, the Alpine Group's main energy lobbyists -- James D. Massie, Richard C. White and Rhod Shaw -- have contributed more than $25,000 to members of the energy committees, and nuclear medicine trade groups have donated tens of thousands more. They have also drummed up support from doctors; the computer signature on one letter to a senator, purportedly written by a radiologist, was actually White's.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Burr, said the senator's support had nothing to do with lobbyists, and everything to do with the 40,000 medical procedures that use isotopes every day. There are plenty of isotopes to irradiate tumors and help doctors see through skin without surgery, but industry groups warn that unless Nordion and other manufacturers can continue to use bomb-grade uranium, patients could suffer.

"Certainly, there are concerns about proliferation," Heye said. "But we're also concerned about people with breast cancer.""

News flash: if someone detonates a nuclear weapon in a city somewhere, women with breast cancer will probably be among the victims. Besides, our Energy Department, not normally noted for its hostility to industry, doesn't seem to think there's a problem:

"Senate opposition was led by Schumer and Republican Jon Kyl (Ariz.), who warned that "were something bad to happen, each one of us would be responsible." They cited the Energy Department's stated goal of ending the commercial use of weapons-grade uranium, and the department's public conclusion that there is no real shortage of medical isotopes. They also pointed out that uranium exported to any European Union country could be resold to another E.U. country without U.S. knowledge. (...)

Critics say that the danger of isotope shortages is highly remote but that the danger of terrorists seizing control of nuclear materials is quite real. During the presidential debates last year, President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) both identified nuclear proliferation as America's most pressing foreign policy challenge.

"I don't recall them agreeing on much else," Markey said. "You'd think we could all agree on this.""

You'd think. But you'd be wrong. The House passed this provision; the Senate rejected it; it found its way back in in conference; and the bill that contains it has now been passed by both houses of Congress and awaits the President's signature. Here's how it got back into the bill:

"The House and Senate still had to reconcile their energy bills, so Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the panel's ranking Democrat, John D. Dingell (Mich.), proposed compromise language. But Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said not to bother; Senate conferees would accept the amendment, even though the full Senate had rejected it."

I take it I don't need to waste time explaining why it's important to minimize both the amount of weapons-grade uranium at loose in the world and the number of independent organizations that control it; why the Energy Department's policy of trying to eliminate it's commercial use is a good one, and why this provision of the energy bill is therefore bad. It's obvious. But if it's obvious to us, it is presumably obvious to the conferees as well. Apparently, they didn't care. We should hold them accountable. As noted above, the provision's sponsor is Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, and Senator Domenici of New Mexico is largely responsible for the provision getting back into the conference bill. The main Republican conferee from the House was Rep. Barton of Texas. The full list of Senate conferees is here; the list of Republican House conferees is here; I haven't been able to locate a list of the Democratic House conferees, but that's less important, since it was a Republican provision in any case, and the Democrats had no power in the conference.

This episode also makes clear, yet again, why the Congress's rules should be amended to make it impossible for a 1725 page bill to be voted on by both houses within 36 hours or so of its being reported out of conference. No one can do a conscientious job of reading the bill in such a short time, nor can those of us in the general public find out about provisions we think are really wrong and try to make a fuss about them. If we valued the idea of having informed debate on important legislation, we would not allow this to happen.

Comments

[Jackmormon]

Oh joy. Makes you wonder what else "vigorous lobbyists" have obtained. And here I thought that the Bush administration was mad at Canada.

[alex]

Well, screw it. Put me down in the Michael Moore column: we deserve everything that happens to us.

*sigh*

Yes, that's sarcasm. Heavy, black sarcasm. Sarcasm that squats on your chest like a 300 lb toad.

[2shoes]

here I thought that the Bush administration was mad at Canada.

Money talks, baby. Money talks.....

[dmbeaster]

Is there no policy that Republicans will not set aside in favor of someone's commercial expediency?

This is pure insanity. U-235 is the easiest path for a terrorist to assemble an atomic weapon. It represents a far greater danger than plutonium.

Weapons-grade uranium means 90%+ U-235 (normal uranium is .7% U-235; normal enriched uranium for reactors is 2 to 3% U-235). It is very hard to enrich uranium to this concentration of U-235. The only practical method for terrorists to get it is to steal an existing supply.

15 kg is all that is needed for a bomb, and it is very easy to make a bomb with U-235. The Hiroshima bomb was simply one plug of U-235 shot down a tube into another mass of U-235 (formed in rings around the tube) to assemble critical mass. Boom.

I am surprised to learn that any shipments of weapons-grade uranium are allowed at all; it is not necessary except for those unwilling to spend the money to upgrade to better reactors. Although not mentioned in the linked articles, I wonder if there was also lobbying by the US companies selling the U-235.

The medical isotope sob story is just that -- a convenient cover story so that Republicans can pretend that they are not whores for any commercial interest that makes the right donations.

[John Thullen]

There is something about nuclear proliferation that the current crowd infesting our government likes.

Wasn't their first move out of the box in 2001 to cut funds for dismantling the Soviet Union's death machine.

They say they don't like North Korea's and Iran's attempts at an arsenal, but methinks they do like it.

So, why would that be?

[bob mcmanus]

"So, why would that be?"

I don't know, have to go read my Tim LeHaye, maybe he could help.

[johnt]

It was Chris Dodd who said "we have it both ways,we criticize big business and we take their contributions",and it was Bill'kiss it" Clinton who led the way in building two nuclear reactors for North Korea. As posted the bill is an abomination,abominations not being the sole province of Democrats. 1725 pages,36 hours,what do you expect? It's not that the republicans are whores,it's that government in general is a totally whorish project yet some can't get enough of it, cut the cows loose in the field and you're going to get cow chips. Most congressmen were shocked to find out just what McCain-Feingold meant,months after they voted for it,George Mitchell handed out 1500 pages of health care reform 24 hours before he expected a vote. That's how the nut house works,suprised?? Just remember,your cherished social legislation gets the same level and duration of thought. Now let's pause and have a hearty laugh at small government libertarians.

[cleek]

as long as DeLay, hero of the stupid, got his $1,500,000,000 gift to the record-profit-making oil industry in there, it's all good.

this is what we vote for. this is what we get. pretty simple.

[Catsy]

Johnt, don't you think that nuclear nonproliferation is a subject that deserves more than a flippant "pox on both your houses" dismissal?

It's not like this is a done deal. Knowing what we know now, we can all try to draw attention to this legislation in the media and with our elected representatives. If President Bush takes nuclear nonproliferation seriously, he can veto this bill and send it back to Congress, telling them what he objects to and asking them to draft legislation that does not increase the chances of enriched uranium falling into the hands of terrorists.

That is, of course, provided Bush is willing to wield a veto for something other than preserving the government's ability to commit human rights abuses.

[Jay C.]

While johnt does (somewhat uncharacteristically) have something of a point in his 9:32 post, there is a MAJOR difference between the inclusion of unnecessary spending or pork-barrel programs in "social legislation", and the relaxations of controls on nuclear materials. A tax-break, a subsidy, a regulatory (re)interpretation: these can all be repealed, revised or dropped without doing too much damage to the Nation. A "rogue" atomic bomb in the hands of terrorists, though can. THAT is what makes issues like this truly scary.
Controls on the spread of nuclear weaponry, whether the traditional "non-proliferation" efforts, or production/trade restraints such as the ones relaxed by the Burr Amendment ought, as matter, literally, of life and death, be a first-order priority for any US government (regardless of whose Adminsitration is in power). That it is not, and is seemingly considered just another lobbyist giveaway - well, the word "disgrace" doesn't even come close!

[John Thullen]

Well, we're in the dog days of summer.

We get a little more nuclear proliferation, a Bolton appointment to the U.N., and the dismissal without comment of the Republican- operative-posing-as-Secret-Service-agent case in which Bush got to choose who was a citizen and who not.

Maybe this John T. and mini-me johnt have libertarian sensibilities in common. As far as I'm concerned, the less regulation of fissionable materials by the evil government, the better. I'm for personalized, portable nuclear weapons for all individuals, especially in schools and at the theatre. We should have one upstairs and down, like fire extinquishers.

I mean, look, if you're going to get kicked out of a political rally for the boy-king for a lousy bumper sticker, why not strap a little fissionable material to your person and see if the fake Secret Service agent really knows his stuff.

Or are the threats of pointed questions and, God forbid, heckling now the biggect terrorist threats?

[bob mcmanus]

Paul Glastris

A lot of people have been talking about Peter Scoblic's New Republic piece about the Bush administration's proliferation policy. The article itself is subscriber only.

Yglesias

Matt has longer excerpts. Links without comment at this time.

[Gary Farber]

Although one might decline to do so in favor of supporting TNR with a subscription, or one may not, bugmenot.com usually works for TNR.

I waxed sarcastic about this issue some 20-odd posts ago here, by the way.

[Anarch]

Nice to see you back, Gary :)

[Gary Farber]

"Nice to see you back, Gary :)"

They try to suck you in with their smiley faces, but we're on to your tricksessssss! We merely glide lightly by, we does, my precioussss.

[Slartibartfast]

Is there no policy that Republicans will not set aside in favor of someone's commercial expediency?

I guess this is simply snow. In truth, anyone from either party who saw this and allowed it to pass without comment is responsible. I'm a little curious how something that was rejected over a month ago, though, made it back into the bill.