[statecom-discuss] Obama's Nuclear Bill

[John Andrews]

What happens when a community becomes outraged over mistreatment by a
large corporation, and turns to their local Democratic Party incumbent
for help?  The article below is a classic example of a scenario that
is being played out every year all across the nation. Note the skill
with which Barack Obama put himself forth as a leader, brought
community voices under Democratic Party control, and then took good
care of the nuclear industry to make sure that nothing happened.
Another example of the adage that "The Democratic Part is where
progressivism goes to die."

If there is any doubt over who Obama is serving,  just follow the money.

While reading this, note that the original bill addressed only
reporting of leaks, not requirements for safety, tougher inspections,
or fines for misbehavior.

Imagine how the story might have turned out if there had been a Green
Party incumbent who had organized the community into an independent
force that could hold incumbents accountable for their behavior.
Imagine . . .

- John

-------

In nuclear bill, an early Obama test
Senator navigated between residents, big source of funds

By Mike McIntire, New York Times News Service  |  February 3, 2008

NEW YORK - When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago
upon learning that the Exelon Corp. had not disclosed radioactive
leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator,
Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and
introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and
local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of
it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it
was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different
story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up
a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Obama
rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon,
and nuclear regulators.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But
contrary to Obama's comments in Iowa, it died amid parliamentary
wrangling in the full Senate despite removal of language mandating
prompt reporting.

Instead, the new bill simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it
charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review,
and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe
Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where
low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater.

The history of the bill shows Obama navigating a home-state
controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each
other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side
were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level
radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was
Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of
Obama's largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in
Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Obama's campaigns for
the US Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M.
Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director,
are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also
chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's
lobbying group. Exelon's support for Obama far exceeds its support for
any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a
consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Axelrod's company
had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with
communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no
involvement in the radioactive leak controversy or other nuclear
issues.

The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Obama
"never discussed this issue or this bill" with Axelrod. The campaign
acknowledged Exelon executives had met with Obama's staff about the
bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists, and regulators.
It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but
as a response to a roadblock put up by Republicans, who then
controlled the Senate.

"If Senator Obama had listened to industry demands, he wouldn't have
repeatedly criticized Exelon in the press, introduced the bill, and
then fought for months to get action on it," the campaign said. "Since
he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows
that it's very difficult to pass a perfect bill."

Asked why Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning
for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced
his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary
basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Obama
had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Obama's efforts
yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of
Concerned Scientists agreed that "it took the introduction of the bill
in the first place to get a reaction from the industry."

"But of course because it is all voluntary," Lochbaum said.

Others say turning the whole matter over to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, as Obama's revised bill would have done, played into the
hands of the nuclear power industry, which they say has little to fear
from the regulators.

Paul Gunter, an activist based in Maryland who assisted neighbors of
the Exelon plants, said he was "disappointed in Senator Obama's lack
of follow-through," which he said weakened the original bill. "The new
legislation falls short" by failing to provide for mandatory
reporting, said Gunter, whose group, Beyond Nuclear, opposes nuclear
energy.