Anti-nuclear proliferation lobbyists say the delay provides political cover for Sen. Bob Bennett and other members of the Senate Appropriations Energy Subcommittee because it puts off a vote on whether to slash spending on research into new versions of nuclear weapons and boosting the readiness of the Nevada Test Site.

"This funding is definitely not going to get resolved before the election," said Jim Bridgeman of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, which delivered a report to Congress this week challenging the need for the weapons programs requested by the Bush administration.

In June, the House over- whelmingly voted to eliminate funding for studies on developing "bunker buster" and "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and drastically reduced a White House request to put the Nevada atomic proving grounds at a state of readiness not seen since the Cold War.

But the Senate version of the Energy Department budget has been stalled for months because of a standoff between Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. Domenici wants to restore near-fatal cuts the House made to the 2005 budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository while Reid is using his political muscle to kill the waste dump.

Bennett's Democratic challenger, Paul Van Dam, has made a campaign issue of the two-term Republican's past votes in support of weapons research, arguing such programs open the door to a renewal of the nuclear arms race and the potential for resumed testing. Bennett doesn't believe the studies will ultimately require experimenting with a live weapon, and has introduced legislation setting health and safety requirements for nuclear tests and has posted on his Senate Web site letters and testimony from top Bush administration officials pledging no future testing plans.

Anti-proliferation groups intend to keep pressure on Congress to cut the funding, especially lawmakers from the Mountain West whose constituents were subjected to downwind fallout from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s.

"There are people in the West who remember those tests and the government lied to them about the safety risk so they are distrustful, as they should be," said Robert Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Just raising the specter [that] testing might be ahead sets off an emotional issue underneath the factual analysis and congressmen and senators are going to react to that."