SANTA FE — Rep. Tom Udall on Wednesday voted against a spending bill that would significantly cut Los Alamos National Laboratory’s budget and halt plutonium pit production at the lab.



Over Udall’s objection, the House Appropriations Committee passed the measure on a voice vote, and it will now head to the House floor.



Udall released a statement  saying he voted Wednesday "to protect New Mexico labs," which he said are critical to ensuring the country’s national security and are a "vital economic foundation" for New Mexico.

 

And although this legislation contains many good provisions, it does not provide a path to the future for our national laboratories, and I could not support it. This bill not only cuts critical programs that are essential to the strength of our labs and the security of our nation, it rescinds funding that LANL and Sandia (National Laboratories) have already been promised and have budgeted for the current fiscal year.



The statement stressed his desire to diversify the lab’s mission to focus on things like nuclear nonproliferation, homeland security and energy research. But there was nary a word about whether or not he supported pit production, a highly controversial lab program that the National Nuclear Security Administration wants to expand.



Pits are the radioactive cores of modern nuclear bombs, and a proposal to make more of them at LANL has run into fierce opposition from anti-nuclear activists, environmentalists, local governments and other key constituencies in Udall’s northern New Mexico congressional district. Lab critics were quick to weigh in on Udall’s vote on Wednesday.

 

"Udall’s lack of support for today’s bill signals a disconnect between his actions in Congress and the impression he has left with many constituents," said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. "Mr. Udall says he wants change, but his vote today was a straight-up expression of the old Cold-War nuclear weapons pork-barrel system. If Mr. Udall really wants LANL to change he has to vote for it when he has the chance, not just express a vague hope that such-and-such will happen in the future."



Sen Pete Domenici, R-N.M., on the other hand seemed to side with Udall, at least in the sense that he, too, opposes the House spending plan as it’s currently written. He said that under the plan, LANL could see a $300 million cut, which would put 2,000 or more jobs at risk. The cuts include $145 million for pit production and $100 million for work on a new controversial plutonium research lab. In all, the House proposal would cut the nation’s weapons program by nearly $600 million, he said.



“This bill is worse than the status quo. Pit production is necessary and I do not know of a single acceptable argument for the United States abandoning its production capacity. No other nation in the world with nuclear capabilities is standing still, which is exactly what this bill would accomplish for us,” said Domenici, who is retiring at the end of the year.



Udall is seeking to replace him, and the debate over LANL’s funding and mission puts him in a difficult political position between the lab’s critics — who have supported Udall in the past — and those who count on the labs for jobs and other economic benefits.



Rep. Steve Pearce, Udall’s Republican opponent in the Senate race, has said he supports pit production and LANL’s nuclear weapons mission. He has criticized Udall for supporting lab cuts last year, an accusation that Udall is now working to counter with a new television ad that touts his support for expanding and shifting the lab’s mission to energy research, counter-terrorism efforts and other programs.



It’s still unclear, though, how Udall thinks pit production should proceed at LANL, if at all. The lab produced 11 pits last year, but the Bush Administration is seeking the capability to produce up to 80 per year.



Asked specifically whether the Santa Fe Democrat supported pit production at LANL, and if so, at what production level, Udall spokesman Sam Simon emailed this response:

"Tom Udall’s position has been clear — he wants fewer nuclear weapons. He has repeatedly called for a broader mission for LANL that helps it grow in other new areas. But we won’t reach our goals by slashing LANL without a plan in place to ensure that the labs remain a critical part of our national security as they have for decades.”



Still no specific mention of pits. Simon said in a subsequent phone interview that "we’re not weighing in right now on the exact number of pits that need to be produced at the lab."



The issue at hand, he said, is a spending bill that does nothing to provide a way forward for LANL, something Udall emphasized in his statement. He also noted that Congress is still in the early stages of the budget debate, which still must wind through the Senate.

 

Domenici is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Water Development subcommittee that is expected to take up the labs’ budgets on July 8.