ECA Update: September 12, 2013
Published: Thu, 09/12/13
|
House Delays Vote on Measure to Prevent Government Shutdown
Kellie Lunney, Government Executive
September 11, 2013
Kellie Lunney, Government Executive
September 11, 2013
The House Republican leadership has delayed a vote on keeping the government open past Sept. 30, according to Capitol Hill staff.
A House GOP aide confirmed that the vote on a stopgap measure to fund federal agencies from the start of fiscal 2014 on Oct. 1 until Dec. 15 has been pushed to next week.
The full House was expected to vote on the continuing resolution on Wednesday or Thursday; the chamber is not in session Friday or Monday, and has a recess scheduled for the week of Sept. 23. That means the House only has five legislative days left to approve a CR and avoid a government shutdown.
Partisan politics reportedly once again upended the legislative process. The House continuing resolution is linked to a concurrent resolution that defunds the 2010 Affordable Care Act, so a vote for the CR would mean approval for the measure to starve Obamacare of money. But the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party views that plan, shepherded by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., as toothless because it gives the Senate the opportunity to scrap the language and approve a "clean" CR avoiding a government shutdown.
The Republican leadership, which believes the GOP would be blamed for a government shutdown, now must secure votes from conservatives who want binding language on defunding Obamacare included in the measure to fund the government for the next two months.
The continuing resolution unveiled by the House Appropriations Committee funds most federal programs at roughly their current, post-sequestration levels; however, it does provide wiggle room in some areas "to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental impacts on government programs, or to ensure good government and program oversight," according to a committee summary.
Wildfire suppression efforts and Veterans Affairs Department disability claims processing, for instance, would receive boosts. The resolution would grant the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureaus funding flexibility to maintain current staffing levels.
The stopgap measure also contains a provision stating that agencies may increase their rate of spending on civilian pay and benefits if necessary to avoid furloughs, after exhausting other options for reducing or deferring non-personnel-related costs.
Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., emphasized the measure is a temporary solution.
"This is not the preferred way of doing the nation's financial work - this Congress can and should be passing regular appropriations bills that reflect the country's changing fiscal needs and realities," he said in a statement. "However, given the late date, a continuing resolution is necessary to stop a governmentwide shut down that would halt critical government programs and services, destabilize our economy, and put the safety and well-being of our citizens at risk."
A House GOP aide confirmed that the vote on a stopgap measure to fund federal agencies from the start of fiscal 2014 on Oct. 1 until Dec. 15 has been pushed to next week.
The full House was expected to vote on the continuing resolution on Wednesday or Thursday; the chamber is not in session Friday or Monday, and has a recess scheduled for the week of Sept. 23. That means the House only has five legislative days left to approve a CR and avoid a government shutdown.
Partisan politics reportedly once again upended the legislative process. The House continuing resolution is linked to a concurrent resolution that defunds the 2010 Affordable Care Act, so a vote for the CR would mean approval for the measure to starve Obamacare of money. But the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party views that plan, shepherded by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., as toothless because it gives the Senate the opportunity to scrap the language and approve a "clean" CR avoiding a government shutdown.
The Republican leadership, which believes the GOP would be blamed for a government shutdown, now must secure votes from conservatives who want binding language on defunding Obamacare included in the measure to fund the government for the next two months.
The continuing resolution unveiled by the House Appropriations Committee funds most federal programs at roughly their current, post-sequestration levels; however, it does provide wiggle room in some areas "to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental impacts on government programs, or to ensure good government and program oversight," according to a committee summary.
Wildfire suppression efforts and Veterans Affairs Department disability claims processing, for instance, would receive boosts. The resolution would grant the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureaus funding flexibility to maintain current staffing levels.
The stopgap measure also contains a provision stating that agencies may increase their rate of spending on civilian pay and benefits if necessary to avoid furloughs, after exhausting other options for reducing or deferring non-personnel-related costs.
Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., emphasized the measure is a temporary solution.
"This is not the preferred way of doing the nation's financial work - this Congress can and should be passing regular appropriations bills that reflect the country's changing fiscal needs and realities," he said in a statement. "However, given the late date, a continuing resolution is necessary to stop a governmentwide shut down that would halt critical government programs and services, destabilize our economy, and put the safety and well-being of our citizens at risk."
Levin: Defense bill headed toward end-of-year 'cliffhanger'
Jeremy Herb, The Hill
September 11, 2013
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said Wednesday this year's Defense authorization bill is going to be a "cliffhanger"at the end of the year as it struggles to get to the Senate floor.
"It'll be another cliffhanger, probably," Levin said at a breakfast with reporters. "It will probably end up closer to the end of the session than I'd like."
Levin had hoped that Defense bill, which authorizes roughly $600 billion in Defense spending, could have been taken up in September. But the debate over Syria and the looming budget fights have put it on hold once again, leaving its movement uncertain.
The Pentagon policy bill is one of the few remaining"must-pass" pieces of legislation. Congress has passed the Defense bill for 51 straight years.
The Pentagon policy bill is one of the few remaining"must-pass" pieces of legislation. Congress has passed the Defense bill for 51 straight years.
The bill always tackles a number of contentious issues. This year, there are major disagreements over sequestration, Guantanamo and military sexual assault.
The full House and Levin's Armed Services panel both passed the authorization measure in June, but it has stalled before heading to the Senate floor, a frequent roadblock for the bill.
Levin told reporters Tuesday he was confident it would come to the floor before the end of the year.
The full House and Levin's Armed Services panel both passed the authorization measure in June, but it has stalled before heading to the Senate floor, a frequent roadblock for the bill.
Levin told reporters Tuesday he was confident it would come to the floor before the end of the year.
Levin said he had spoken to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week, who told him it would be "as soon as possible."
Asked if he knew what that meant, Levin responded, "No."
"There's a lot of uncertainty in the world," he said.
"There's a lot of uncertainty in the world," he said.
NRC to release draft waste confidence rule and generic environmental impact statement for public comment on Friday, September 13
ECA
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will release draft versions of its waste confidence rule and generic environmental impact statement, for public comment, in the Friday, September 13 edition of the Federal Register.
Pre-release versions are available at Draft Waste Confidence Rule and Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
Republicans Accuse NRC of Stalling Yucca Review
Brian Wingfield, Bloomberg
September 10, 2013
House Republicans said the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't moving fast enough to resume study of a nuclear-waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, saying the agency has the money.
"The NRC again appears to be stalling" in response to a federal court's decision last month directing the agency to continue its safety review of the project, Representative John Shimkus of Illinois said at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing in Washington today.
NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane, who testified at the hearing, said that while the agency has about $11.1 million in unobligated funds to consider the review, it doesn't have sufficient money to complete the licensing process. The agency is still assembling its estimate for the amount needed.
About 65,000 metric tons of spent-nuclear fuel are now being stored at about 75 operating and closed reactor sites. In the Senate, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation to move forward with a nuclear-waste bill that doesn't specify whether the abandoned Yucca Mountain project should be resumed.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Aug. 13 that the NRC must continue its safety review for the facility, located about 100 miles (161 kilometers) northwest of Las Vegas. The agency halted the evaluation after President Barack Obama's administration in 2010 cut funding for the Yucca program, saying the project was not a workable option. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, opposes the facility.
'Fiscally Responsible'
"Compliance with the law is not optional," Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said. "Resumption of the Yucca Mountain program remains the clearest, fastest and most fiscally responsible way" for the government dispose of spent-nuclear fuel, he said.
"We of course intend to follow the law, we are now following the law, we are moving forward," Macfarlane said. The agency is "moving as expeditiously as possible" to continue its review, she said.
Shimkus, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, said the agency has the funding to move forward with the Yucca project, which has cost taxpayers and industry about $15 billion.
Revising Estimate
"You've confirmed in testimony that you have the funds available" to release the safety review, he told Macfarlane. "Are you going to comply with the law based on your previous statements and the fact that you have money to do so?"
Macfarlane said the agency has asked its staff to begin working on a revised estimate of what's needed to complete the study and that the agency is seeking input from interested parties through the end of the month.
The court ruling neither resolved the question of funding for the safety review, nor has it moved the U.S. toward a new approach for dealing with the nation's commercial nuclear waste, according to Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.
"The reality is that the court decision has not really changed anything," he said.
Macfarlane said yesterday that she would participate in proceedings related to Yucca Mountain, over the objections of officials in Nye County, Nevada -- where Yucca Mountain is located -- who had sought her recusal due to her previous academic work on the topic.
"I can state unequivocally that I have not reached any conclusions, and I have an open mind" on the Yucca Mountain licensing process, Macfarlane wrote.
Nevada extends $5 million contract to fight Yucca Mountain
Sean Whaley, Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 10, 2013
CARSON CITY -- Nevada is ready to continue its fight against any efforts to license Yucca Mountain as a high-level nuclear waste dump with a vote Tuesday by a state board to extend a contract for private legal representation.
The state Board of Examiners, made up of Gov. Brian Sandoval, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller, approved the $5 million contract extension between the state and the Washington, D.C., legal firm of Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence for work related to the Yucca Mountain project.
The vote comes after a federal appeals court ruled in August that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acted improperly when it shelved license hearings for the repository selected by Congress in 2002.
Despite the ruling, state officials said a licensing hearing is unlikely to proceed because there is virtually no money at the federal level to do so.
Marta Adams, a senior deputy attorney general who has been working on Nevada's fight against the project for years, told the Board of Examiners that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission only has about $11 million left in its nuclear waste licensing account for a Yucca Mountain proceeding, tens of millions less than would be needed to move the process forward.
"It won't last," she said. "I think we're in good shape."
Sandoval said the small amount of funding now available for the licensing proceeding, along with the unwillingness of the Obama administration to fund it further, puts Nevada in a strong position.
"So it's a little bit of a wait and see of what we have to do and that was the importance of this contract," he said. "In the event the situation changes, Nevada will be prepared."
Ninety percent of the funding for the contract extension comes from the federal government, but that money cannot be used in any lawsuits filed by Nevada in challenging the project, Adams said. The federal money can only be used by the legal team in any licensing proceedings before the commission.
So far the state has spent $36 million fighting the project, with about $14 million of that total coming from the state general fund and the rest from the federal government.
Despite the Obama administration's refusal to move forward with the project, it was given a boost last month when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling regarding the Yucca site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The ruling is likely to provoke new rounds of political and legal maneuvers among supporters and critics of the project that -- until Obama was elected -- pitted the federal government and the nuclear industry against the state of Nevada that has fought furiously to keep high-level waste from its borders.
The state Board of Examiners, made up of Gov. Brian Sandoval, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller, approved the $5 million contract extension between the state and the Washington, D.C., legal firm of Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence for work related to the Yucca Mountain project.
The vote comes after a federal appeals court ruled in August that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acted improperly when it shelved license hearings for the repository selected by Congress in 2002.
Despite the ruling, state officials said a licensing hearing is unlikely to proceed because there is virtually no money at the federal level to do so.
Marta Adams, a senior deputy attorney general who has been working on Nevada's fight against the project for years, told the Board of Examiners that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission only has about $11 million left in its nuclear waste licensing account for a Yucca Mountain proceeding, tens of millions less than would be needed to move the process forward.
"It won't last," she said. "I think we're in good shape."
Sandoval said the small amount of funding now available for the licensing proceeding, along with the unwillingness of the Obama administration to fund it further, puts Nevada in a strong position.
"So it's a little bit of a wait and see of what we have to do and that was the importance of this contract," he said. "In the event the situation changes, Nevada will be prepared."
Ninety percent of the funding for the contract extension comes from the federal government, but that money cannot be used in any lawsuits filed by Nevada in challenging the project, Adams said. The federal money can only be used by the legal team in any licensing proceedings before the commission.
So far the state has spent $36 million fighting the project, with about $14 million of that total coming from the state general fund and the rest from the federal government.
Despite the Obama administration's refusal to move forward with the project, it was given a boost last month when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling regarding the Yucca site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The ruling is likely to provoke new rounds of political and legal maneuvers among supporters and critics of the project that -- until Obama was elected -- pitted the federal government and the nuclear industry against the state of Nevada that has fought furiously to keep high-level waste from its borders.
Report Flags Concern With Weapons Lab Oversight, Sparks Hill Debate
Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
September 10, 2013
WASHINGTON -- A new National Academies of Science report released Tuesday flags some concerns about how the Energy Department oversees its nuclear-weapons laboratories, rekindling debate over controversial proposals by some House Republicans to scale back that oversight.
The assessment identifies some issues "that, if not addressed, have the potential to erode the ability to perform high-quality work at the laboratories," which include the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
Overall, though, the "science and engineering capabilities that underpin the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and nonproliferation missions at the nation's three national security laboratories are 'healthy and vibrant,'" according to a summary of the report.
The NAS panel that authored the document "found no problems with the quality of science and engineering that would prevent" the labs from ensuring that the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons is reliable.
Since the United States declared a moratorium on nuclear-weapons testing in 1992, one of the key functions of the labs has been to ensure that the country's atomic arms remain safe and reliable without actually detonating warheads.
The NAS report says the cost of doing some of the experiments necessary to perform this function is rising, and it blames this in part on what it says is excessive oversight by the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration on the private contractors that run the labs.
"If the current degree of operational oversight continues, too many experiments will be unaffordable, and that would be very damaging to the quality" of science and engineering at the labs, the report says. "Factors driving experimental costs include the loss of trust, excessive duplicative oversight, formality of operations, and a culture of audit and risk avoidance."
The NAS panel suggests that when determining the necessary amount of oversight, "the risks inherent in doing an experiment need to be brought into balance with the benefits of doing the experiment and the associated risks of not doing the experiment." It notes a related NAS report issued last year made similar findings.
The Republican leadership of the House Armed Services Committee cited that prior report when it inserted several controversial provisions into its draft of the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The provisions would have streamlined DOE oversight, including by removing the department's authority "to make policy, prescribe regulations and conduct oversight of health, safety and security in the nuclear security enterprise."
Senate Democrats and House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans ultimately stripped the proposals from the fiscal 2013 bill. Lawmakers expressed particular reservations over scaling back government oversight of the nuclear-weapons complex after an 82-year-old nun and two other peace activists broke into the Y-12 National Nuclear Security Complex in Tennessee.
This year, reforms proposed by House Armed Service Committee Republicans are not as ambitious, but their version of the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill does include some controversial provisions regarding lab oversight.
One such provision would require the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to conduct cost-benefit analyses of any recommendations it makes, upon request from the Energy secretary. Democrats have raised concerns that conducting such analyses would drain resources from the safety board and limit its ability to conduct oversight and make recommendations on how to improve safety and security across the weapons complex.
The Energy Department, which has a much larger budget and staff, would be better suited to conduct such analyses, Democrats contend.
Similarly, critics of the House Armed Services proposals believe the department also has the ability to conduct the type of cost-benefit analyses that would determine the proper level of oversight for laboratory experiments -- as recommended by the new NAS report -- without adopting the controversial statutory changes that GOP committee members have proposed, a Capitol Hill staffer told Global Security Newswire.
Congress pushed the Energy Department to do these kinds of appraisals in the version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill that ultimately became law, noted the Capitol Hill aide, who asked to remain unnamed, lacking authorization to discuss the issue publicly. While the department has the ability to do these reviews, it needs to work out the details with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the staffer said.
According to the congressional aide, such reviews would enable the department to focus its oversight efforts more on the problems that are most likely to arise from lab experiments, rather than the worst-case scenarios. The type of oversight rollbacks proposed by House Armed Service Committee Republicans would be too extreme, the staffer asserted, given the inherent dangers associated with conducting experiments using plutonium and other sensitive materials.
While the NAS report is correct to point out the issue, the GOP committee members' proposals are not the solution, the aide argued.
House Armed Service Committee Republicans "will go, 'See, well, we told you so,' but the DOE has these probabilistic tools, they've just got to work with DNFSB to say, 'Look, this is the most likely event, this is the least likely event ... not the 1 in 10 million kind of thing," the staffer said.
The House Armed Service Committee did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: Observations on NNSA's Options for Meeting Its Plutonium Research Needs
GAO Report
September 11, 2013
What GAO Found
The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) April 2012 study (1) identified general options for meeting the plutonium research needs of NNSA--a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy (DOE)--during the several-year gap created by the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) nuclear facility and (2) included limited information on costs and health risks. The study noted that the level of plutonium research necessary to support the nuclear weapons life extension programs is affected by the planned schedule of the life extension programs, the number of pits that will be needed under the programs, and the number of pits that will need to be manufactured versus re-used, all of which have uncertainties. According to the April 2012 study, one option for meeting NNSA's plutonium research needs is to relocate analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities among facilities at LANL, which will require upgrades costing roughly $480 million to $820 million. A second option is to move capabilities to existing facilities at other sites. The study concluded that no single site could provide all the capabilities that might be needed, but that the facilities could be renovated to meet the needs. The study did not include costs for relocating capabilities to other sites. A third option is a combination of these two. The study also indicated some potential health risks to workers from increased plutonium handling if samples need to be transported to other sites. As of July 2013, NNSA officials stated that an option had not yet been selected for meeting plutonium research needs from 2019 through the late-2020s, and no decisions have been made on facilities to address longer-term plutonium research needs. To address its ongoing, longer-term plutonium research needs, NNSA stated it is now considering a modular facility.
The potential impacts of the options identified in LANL's study on NNSA's plutonium research for the nuclear weapons stockpile and other plutonium mission areas are uncertain. If NNSA uses space only at LANL, rather than relocating some capabilities to facilities at other sites, some LANL plutonium research missions could potentially be impacted because space may have to be reconfigured to accommodate nuclear weapons stockpile mission needs. NNSA has tasked LANL with assessing building space to see if it can be repurposed to better support plutonium research. In addition, the study noted that one potential impact of using facilities at other sites could be delays in completing needed analytical chemistry or materials characterization due to time needed to transport samples between sites. Using facilities at other sites will require time for NNSA to plan for and transport materials between LANL and other sites, which could increase the total time needed to complete the analyses for weapon pits. The study also noted that the shortage of trained staff in analytical chemistry could impact the ability to execute the options, which could affect NNSA's ability to meet proposed schedules for the refurbishment of nuclear weapons. The study reported that the analytical chemistry staff at LANL has been reduced by 60 percent in the span of a few years due to retirements and budget cuts. The contractor at LANL recommended that NNSA conduct a detailed risk analysis on staffing needs to better understand and plan for staffing limitations, according to the study.
Why GAO Did This Study
Nuclear weapons are an essential part of the nation's defense strategy. NNSA manages the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and carries out research to help extend the life of existing weapons. The core of a nuclear weapon requires plutonium--a man-made radioactive element--to create a nuclear explosion. NNSA's LANL in New Mexico houses key plutonium facilities needed for research for nuclear weapons life extension programs and other missions. In 2005, NNSA approved construction of CMRR to replace the aging facility being used. In February 2012, NNSA announced it had decided to defer CMRR nuclear facility construction for at least 5 years, creating a potential gap in plutonium research capabilities from 2019 to the late-2020s. NNSA requested LANL to study options to address this gap. The study was completed in April 2012.
The Senate Armed Services Committee Report accompanying the 2013 defense authorization directed GAO to review the study. GAO examined (1) the options identified in the study for meeting NNSA's plutonium research needs, including costs and health risks, if any and (2) the potential impacts of those options on NNSA's plutonium research for the nuclear weapons stockpile and other plutonium research missions.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that NNSA continue efforts to assess how plutonium research and capability needs and stockpile requirements have changed, if at all since 2008, and develop a plan for both near- and longer-term needs. NNSA agreed with the recommendation.
Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate, Including Bradley Crowell as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Beth Cobert as OMB Deputy Director
The White House
September 11, 2013
NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:
Larry Edward André, Jr., of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.
Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, of the District of Columbia, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
John P. Carlin, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice Lisa O. Monaco, resigned.
Beth F. Cobert, of California, to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, vice Jeffrey D. Zients, resigned.
Bradley Crowell, of Nevada, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs), vice Jeffrey A. Lane.
Richard G. Frank, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, vice Sherry Glied, resigned.
Anthony Luzzatto Gardner, of New York, to be Representative of the United States of America to the European Union, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
Sloan D. Gibson, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, vice W. Scott Gould.
Heather Anne Higginbottom, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, vice Thomas R. Nides, resigned.
Paul Nathan Jaenichen, Sr., of Kentucky, to be Administrator of the Maritime Administration, vice David T. Matsuda, resigned.
Esther Puakela Kia'aina, of Hawaii, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, vice Anthony Marion Babauta.
Helen Meagher La Lime, of the District of Columbia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Angola.
Michael Anderson Lawson, of California, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
Barbara Lee, of California, to be a Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Michael D. Lumpkin, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vice Michael A. Sheehan.
Mark Meadows, of North Carolina, to be a Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Luis G. Moreno, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Jamaica.
Jamie Michael Morin, of Michigan, to be Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense, vice Christine H. Fox, resigned.
Jo Ann Rooney, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of the Navy, vice Robert O. Work, resigned.
James H. Shelton III, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of Education, vice Anthony W. Miller, resigned.
Christopher Smith, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy), vice Charles DeWitt McConnell, resigned.
Theodore Strickland, of Ohio, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Puneet Talwar, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs), vice Andrew J. Shapiro.
George James Tsunis, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Norway.
Victoria Marie Baecher Wassmer, of Illinois, to be Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, vice Barbara J. Bennett, resigned.
David Weil, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, vice Paul DeCamp.
Roy K. J. Williams, of Ohio, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, vice John R. Fernandez, resigned.
Daniel W. Yohannes, of Colorado, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, with the rank of Ambassador.
Stephen N. Zack, of Florida, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Leaders Meet as Fiscal Fights Loom Large
Billy House, National Journal
September 11, 2013
With big deadlines and political hurdles looming over fights to keep the government funded and hike the nation's borrowing limit, a meeting Thursday of the top four congressional leaders could set the tone for the autumn.
It will be the first get-together for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., since Congress returned from its summer recess. The closed-door setting for this kickoff meeting will be Boehner's office at the Capitol.
"In my view, these next six weeks are going to in some ways be a litmus test as to whether America continues to be a great nation that can manage itself rationally and through a democratic process of compromise and agreement," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday.
Indeed, obstacles to cooperation are already surfacing, and a potential government shutdown and national default may hang in the balance.
A House vote planned for Thursday on a Republican bill to keep the government running beyond Sept. 30, when the current funding mechanism expires, was postponed Wednesday. Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and other GOP leaders determined they did not yet have the votes.
The leaders sought to appease right-wing members of their conference by tying the bill to a quirky procedure that would force the Senate to vote on defunding President Obama's health care law. But that strategy has stalled.
However, lawmakers must find some way to keep federal offices running, even if only for the short term, to allow time for negotiations on a larger deal that would include raising the debt ceiling before mid-October, when estimates show the Treasury will no longer be able to pay U.S. obligations.
But, so far, congressional compromise and agreement are far from certain. Boehner himself has already promised a "whale of a fight" over raising the nation's $16.7 trillion debt ceiling.
While the White House says President Obama won't negotiate on the debt ceiling, because the United States must pay its bills, the speaker says Republicans won't agree to lift the borrowing authority without significant spending cuts and changes to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, farm programs, and government pensions.
Up to this point, the inability of leaders in both parties to make significant concessions has been a major obstacle, illustrated, for instance, by the fact that neither the House nor the Senate has reached agreement on regular appropriations bills.
Now, House Republicans are having difficulty unifying themselves behind a fiscal strategy, adding another layer of negotiation that may not bode well for talks with Democrats.
The stopgap spending measure that Republicans put forth this week, as officially introduced by Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., was expected to meet resistance from Democrats in both the House and Senate, even without the Affordable Care Act language. That's because it would continue government spending through Dec. 15 at an annualized rate of $986.3 billion, just under the current level, which includes the sequestration cuts.
By contrast, the Democratic-led Senate has been writing up its spending bills for the next fiscal year with a topline of $1.059 trillion, on the assumption that sequestration would be repealed, which Democrats in both chambers have been seeking. Even without the Obamacare language, Hoyer told reporters that House Democrats would not support the House GOP bill because it maintains the sequester cuts.
And so Boehner, Cantor, and House leaders were left to depend on getting enough votes from their own party, and they determined that was not dependable. The delay could leave Boehner going into the Thursday's meeting with Reid, McConnell, and Pelosi on less than solid ground.
Hoyer has already advised fellow Democrats not to make any plans for the last full week in September, on the suspicion that lawmakers may be still negotiating how to avert a government shutdown in the final days before Oct. 1.
Exactly how short GOP leaders are in terms of votes is unclear. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., a close Boehner ally, said, "Obviously, we're not where we need to be, or we would have voted on it."
But perhaps a more ominous sign came from a statement released by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 170 conservatives.
"We must use every legislative avenue," he said, "through the CR, the debt ceiling, and the sequester conversations to free the country from the president's train wreck of a health care law."
It will be the first get-together for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., since Congress returned from its summer recess. The closed-door setting for this kickoff meeting will be Boehner's office at the Capitol.
"In my view, these next six weeks are going to in some ways be a litmus test as to whether America continues to be a great nation that can manage itself rationally and through a democratic process of compromise and agreement," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday.
Indeed, obstacles to cooperation are already surfacing, and a potential government shutdown and national default may hang in the balance.
A House vote planned for Thursday on a Republican bill to keep the government running beyond Sept. 30, when the current funding mechanism expires, was postponed Wednesday. Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and other GOP leaders determined they did not yet have the votes.
The leaders sought to appease right-wing members of their conference by tying the bill to a quirky procedure that would force the Senate to vote on defunding President Obama's health care law. But that strategy has stalled.
However, lawmakers must find some way to keep federal offices running, even if only for the short term, to allow time for negotiations on a larger deal that would include raising the debt ceiling before mid-October, when estimates show the Treasury will no longer be able to pay U.S. obligations.
But, so far, congressional compromise and agreement are far from certain. Boehner himself has already promised a "whale of a fight" over raising the nation's $16.7 trillion debt ceiling.
While the White House says President Obama won't negotiate on the debt ceiling, because the United States must pay its bills, the speaker says Republicans won't agree to lift the borrowing authority without significant spending cuts and changes to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, farm programs, and government pensions.
Up to this point, the inability of leaders in both parties to make significant concessions has been a major obstacle, illustrated, for instance, by the fact that neither the House nor the Senate has reached agreement on regular appropriations bills.
Now, House Republicans are having difficulty unifying themselves behind a fiscal strategy, adding another layer of negotiation that may not bode well for talks with Democrats.
The stopgap spending measure that Republicans put forth this week, as officially introduced by Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., was expected to meet resistance from Democrats in both the House and Senate, even without the Affordable Care Act language. That's because it would continue government spending through Dec. 15 at an annualized rate of $986.3 billion, just under the current level, which includes the sequestration cuts.
By contrast, the Democratic-led Senate has been writing up its spending bills for the next fiscal year with a topline of $1.059 trillion, on the assumption that sequestration would be repealed, which Democrats in both chambers have been seeking. Even without the Obamacare language, Hoyer told reporters that House Democrats would not support the House GOP bill because it maintains the sequester cuts.
And so Boehner, Cantor, and House leaders were left to depend on getting enough votes from their own party, and they determined that was not dependable. The delay could leave Boehner going into the Thursday's meeting with Reid, McConnell, and Pelosi on less than solid ground.
Hoyer has already advised fellow Democrats not to make any plans for the last full week in September, on the suspicion that lawmakers may be still negotiating how to avert a government shutdown in the final days before Oct. 1.
Exactly how short GOP leaders are in terms of votes is unclear. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., a close Boehner ally, said, "Obviously, we're not where we need to be, or we would have voted on it."
But perhaps a more ominous sign came from a statement released by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 170 conservatives.
"We must use every legislative avenue," he said, "through the CR, the debt ceiling, and the sequester conversations to free the country from the president's train wreck of a health care law."
U.S. will hit debt limit between Oct. 18 and Nov. 5, analysis says
Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times
September 10, 2013
WASHINGTON -- The Treasury Department will be unable to pay all the nation's bills starting sometime between Oct. 18 and Nov. 5 unless Congress raises the debt limit, according to a private analysis released Tuesday.
The new "X date" from the Bipartisan Policy Center gives lawmakers a more specific time frame for action to avoid a government default and provides details about how the Treasury might handle paying bills after exhausting its borrowing ability.
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew formally told Congress last month that the U.S. would reach the limit of its $16.7 trillion borrowing authority in the middle of October.
When the Treasury no longer can borrow, it would be dependent on whatever cash is left on hand and the daily revenue flowing into government coffers to pay its bills. Those bills include interest payments on Treasury securities.
Predicting the exact amount of money coming in from tax payments and other sources on any given day is tricky, making it difficult to set an exact date for a default, said Steve Bell, senior director of the center's Economic Policy Project.
"Treasury is running out of options and that puts you in a very dangerous position if $10 billion comes in one day and you expected $12 billion," he told reporters.
By mid-October, "there will be substantial uncertainty" about when the government would be unable to pay all its bills, Bell said.
"It would be, in my view, very imprudent ... not to have resolution before then because of the fear of market reaction," he said.
A standoff over the debt limit in 2011 raised fears of a first-ever U.S. government default and led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the nation's credit rating.
The Bipartisan Policy Center said the debt limit would need to be raised $1.1 trillion to delay the next fight until the end of 2014 -- after the mid-term congressional elections.
Many Republicans are balking at increasing the debt limit again.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said any increase must be offset by budget cuts or spending reforms at least as large as the increase. But Lew has said President Obama will not negotiate over raising the debt limit because it is needed to cover spending already authorized by Congress.
Some Republicans have said the government can prioritize payments to holders of Treasury securities, thus avoiding a default on those obligations.
The Treasury might be able to prioritize interest payments on securities, the Bipartisan Policy Center analysis said. Those payments are handled by a different computer system than other government obligations.
But Bell said there would be "political danger" if the government were paying bondholders, which include the Chinese government, instead of Americans on Social Security.
It would be difficult to prioritize other payments. The Bipartisan Policy Center analysis said the Treasury Department might not be able to sort through nearly 100 million payments due each month to choose which to pay.
A more likely scenario, based on statements Treasury officials made in a 2012 inspector general's report, would be to delay payments, the analysis said.
The Treasury Department could wait until it received enough money to pay a specific day's bills. The delays would start out short but would build over time.
For example, if the Treasury hit its borrowing authority on Oct. 18, payments to Medicare and Medicaid providers due that day would be delayed one business day, to Oct. 21. But Social Security checks, veterans benefits and active-duty military pay due to be issued on Nov. 1 would not go out until Nov. 13.
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew formally told Congress last month that the U.S. would reach the limit of its $16.7 trillion borrowing authority in the middle of October.
When the Treasury no longer can borrow, it would be dependent on whatever cash is left on hand and the daily revenue flowing into government coffers to pay its bills. Those bills include interest payments on Treasury securities.
Predicting the exact amount of money coming in from tax payments and other sources on any given day is tricky, making it difficult to set an exact date for a default, said Steve Bell, senior director of the center's Economic Policy Project.
"Treasury is running out of options and that puts you in a very dangerous position if $10 billion comes in one day and you expected $12 billion," he told reporters.
By mid-October, "there will be substantial uncertainty" about when the government would be unable to pay all its bills, Bell said.
"It would be, in my view, very imprudent ... not to have resolution before then because of the fear of market reaction," he said.
A standoff over the debt limit in 2011 raised fears of a first-ever U.S. government default and led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the nation's credit rating.
The Bipartisan Policy Center said the debt limit would need to be raised $1.1 trillion to delay the next fight until the end of 2014 -- after the mid-term congressional elections.
Many Republicans are balking at increasing the debt limit again.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said any increase must be offset by budget cuts or spending reforms at least as large as the increase. But Lew has said President Obama will not negotiate over raising the debt limit because it is needed to cover spending already authorized by Congress.
Some Republicans have said the government can prioritize payments to holders of Treasury securities, thus avoiding a default on those obligations.
The Treasury might be able to prioritize interest payments on securities, the Bipartisan Policy Center analysis said. Those payments are handled by a different computer system than other government obligations.
But Bell said there would be "political danger" if the government were paying bondholders, which include the Chinese government, instead of Americans on Social Security.
It would be difficult to prioritize other payments. The Bipartisan Policy Center analysis said the Treasury Department might not be able to sort through nearly 100 million payments due each month to choose which to pay.
A more likely scenario, based on statements Treasury officials made in a 2012 inspector general's report, would be to delay payments, the analysis said.
The Treasury Department could wait until it received enough money to pay a specific day's bills. The delays would start out short but would build over time.
For example, if the Treasury hit its borrowing authority on Oct. 18, payments to Medicare and Medicaid providers due that day would be delayed one business day, to Oct. 21. But Social Security checks, veterans benefits and active-duty military pay due to be issued on Nov. 1 would not go out until Nov. 13.
The government technically hit the debt limit in May. But the Treasury has been using what it calls "extraordinary measures" since then to juggle the nation's finances and continue paying its bills. Those measures included suspending investments in some federal pension funds and in a currency exchange rate fund.
Those actions had the potential to give Treasury about $303 billion in additional money to pay the nation's bills. As of Aug. 31, Treasury had about $108 billion of that cushion left to use, the analysis said.
Credit raters take pressure off Congress for debt deal
Peter Schroeder, The Hill
September 10, 2013
Credit rating agencies are keeping their clubs behind their backs as lawmakers begin to duke it out over the debt ceiling.
The "big three" raters were a visible force during the debt-ceiling battle of 2011, warning that only a broad deal to reduce red ink could protect the nation's credit rating.
The "big three" raters were a visible force during the debt-ceiling battle of 2011, warning that only a broad deal to reduce red ink could protect the nation's credit rating.
But now, buoyed by an improved deficit picture and possibly eager to avoid another showdown with Congress, the raters are signaling that they expect this year's fiscal fight to have a happy ending.
Marie Cavanaugh, the managing director of the sovereign ratings group at Standard &Poor's (S&P), said she sees an "increasing ability" of lawmakers to reach agreement on funding the government and increasing the debt limit.
"We expect the continuing resolution to pass, and we expect the debt ceiling to be raised, albeit not necessarily smoothly," she said. "The kind of extreme brinkmanship one saw in 2011 didn't serve the economy. It probably didn't serve anyone. There's major incentive in our opinion to reach an agreement."
That's a far cry from the rhetoric heard two years ago, when credit raters told Congress the nation's financial reputation was on the line if they failed to boost the debt ceiling and enact significant fiscal reforms.
The fight culminated in the first-ever downgrade of U.S. securities by S&P, a move that rattled financial markets as the rater questioned Washington's ability to get the job done.
Two years later, the credit agencies say they're convinced lawmakers have learned their lesson. They cite the deal struck to avoid the "fiscal cliff" as a sign that when push comes to shove, Congress can do what needs to be done.
Congress needs to agree to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1, and the Treasury Department has told lawmakers it needs a boost to the government's $16.7 trillion borrowing cap by mid-October in order to keep paying the government's bills.
But despite those looming challenges, both S&P and Moody's revised their outlook on the nation's debt from negative to stable this summer, meaning neither expects to be issuing downgrades anytime soon.
"We think the situation has stabilized," Cavanaugh said.
Steven Hess, senior vice president at Moody's, struck a similar tone. While he expects plenty of "political noise" in the coming weeks, he does not expect the nation's borrowing reputation to be at risk.
"From a credit rating perspective, we are not too concerned about either [government funding or the debt ceiling]," he said. "We don't foresee that these short-term issues are likely to change that [stable] outlook."
The outlier of the three major raters is Fitch, which has kept the nation's credit on a negative outlook and warns a downgrade could still come before the end of the year.
In its latest statement on the nation's rating in June, Fitch warned that the pair of fiscal fights was weighing heavily on its calculus.
Still, Fitch said there's plenty to like about American debt: The U.S. economy is productive and diverse, the U.S. dollar remains the world's undisputed reserve currency and Treasury bonds are highly liquid.
Fitch also said the deficit had fallen nearly to the levels needed to stabilize the debt.
But it warned a failure to raise the debt limit on time would "likely lead to a downgrade," while a government shutdown would "further undermine confidence in the budgetary process" and the likelihood of further fiscal reforms.
One factor keeping raters more on the sideline this time around could be the limited impact of the first downgrade from Standard & Poor's. Much of the doom and gloom predicted by officials did not come to fruition, and Treasury bonds actually became more desirable as investors rushed to them as a safe haven during the tumultuous time.
"We did get downgraded, and the sky didn't fall. The sun came up the next morning, and rates did not go through the roof," said Brian Gardner, senior vice president for Washington research at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods. "We're kind of left with the question of, 'OK, does it really matter?'"
Standard & Poor's relationship with the government has gotten rockier since the downgrade. The Justice Department sued the agency for fraud in February over high ratings given to risky mortgage-backed securities before the financial meltdown, and the rater has argued it amounts to payback for the downgrade.
The Justice Department says there is no connection between the two, although it has not brought similar charges against Fitch or Moody's.
The "fiscal-cliff" deal might have given raters more confidence in Washington, but it also did wonders for the deficit.
The federal deficit was down to $606 billion in August and is on track to hit the lowest level of President Obama's tenure, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Cavanaugh contended that the rosier deficit and economic picture could actually grease the wheels for deal-making in Congress.
"It's always easier to make adjustments in a stronger economy," she said. "We think it might be easier to reach an agreement."
While the raters aren't making as much noise as they did in 2011, they want to make clear that Washington isn't off the hook.
While the nation's rating may not be at risk now, they says policymakers will need to take further steps to rein in the deficit over the long-term before an aging population and rising healthcare costs cut into the federal balance sheet.
"The AAA rating is not guaranteed forever," said Hess of Moody's. "We will be looking for further measures over the next few years."
Marie Cavanaugh, the managing director of the sovereign ratings group at Standard &Poor's (S&P), said she sees an "increasing ability" of lawmakers to reach agreement on funding the government and increasing the debt limit.
"We expect the continuing resolution to pass, and we expect the debt ceiling to be raised, albeit not necessarily smoothly," she said. "The kind of extreme brinkmanship one saw in 2011 didn't serve the economy. It probably didn't serve anyone. There's major incentive in our opinion to reach an agreement."
That's a far cry from the rhetoric heard two years ago, when credit raters told Congress the nation's financial reputation was on the line if they failed to boost the debt ceiling and enact significant fiscal reforms.
The fight culminated in the first-ever downgrade of U.S. securities by S&P, a move that rattled financial markets as the rater questioned Washington's ability to get the job done.
Two years later, the credit agencies say they're convinced lawmakers have learned their lesson. They cite the deal struck to avoid the "fiscal cliff" as a sign that when push comes to shove, Congress can do what needs to be done.
Congress needs to agree to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1, and the Treasury Department has told lawmakers it needs a boost to the government's $16.7 trillion borrowing cap by mid-October in order to keep paying the government's bills.
But despite those looming challenges, both S&P and Moody's revised their outlook on the nation's debt from negative to stable this summer, meaning neither expects to be issuing downgrades anytime soon.
"We think the situation has stabilized," Cavanaugh said.
Steven Hess, senior vice president at Moody's, struck a similar tone. While he expects plenty of "political noise" in the coming weeks, he does not expect the nation's borrowing reputation to be at risk.
"From a credit rating perspective, we are not too concerned about either [government funding or the debt ceiling]," he said. "We don't foresee that these short-term issues are likely to change that [stable] outlook."
The outlier of the three major raters is Fitch, which has kept the nation's credit on a negative outlook and warns a downgrade could still come before the end of the year.
In its latest statement on the nation's rating in June, Fitch warned that the pair of fiscal fights was weighing heavily on its calculus.
Still, Fitch said there's plenty to like about American debt: The U.S. economy is productive and diverse, the U.S. dollar remains the world's undisputed reserve currency and Treasury bonds are highly liquid.
Fitch also said the deficit had fallen nearly to the levels needed to stabilize the debt.
But it warned a failure to raise the debt limit on time would "likely lead to a downgrade," while a government shutdown would "further undermine confidence in the budgetary process" and the likelihood of further fiscal reforms.
One factor keeping raters more on the sideline this time around could be the limited impact of the first downgrade from Standard & Poor's. Much of the doom and gloom predicted by officials did not come to fruition, and Treasury bonds actually became more desirable as investors rushed to them as a safe haven during the tumultuous time.
"We did get downgraded, and the sky didn't fall. The sun came up the next morning, and rates did not go through the roof," said Brian Gardner, senior vice president for Washington research at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods. "We're kind of left with the question of, 'OK, does it really matter?'"
Standard & Poor's relationship with the government has gotten rockier since the downgrade. The Justice Department sued the agency for fraud in February over high ratings given to risky mortgage-backed securities before the financial meltdown, and the rater has argued it amounts to payback for the downgrade.
The Justice Department says there is no connection between the two, although it has not brought similar charges against Fitch or Moody's.
The "fiscal-cliff" deal might have given raters more confidence in Washington, but it also did wonders for the deficit.
The federal deficit was down to $606 billion in August and is on track to hit the lowest level of President Obama's tenure, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Cavanaugh contended that the rosier deficit and economic picture could actually grease the wheels for deal-making in Congress.
"It's always easier to make adjustments in a stronger economy," she said. "We think it might be easier to reach an agreement."
While the raters aren't making as much noise as they did in 2011, they want to make clear that Washington isn't off the hook.
While the nation's rating may not be at risk now, they says policymakers will need to take further steps to rein in the deficit over the long-term before an aging population and rising healthcare costs cut into the federal balance sheet.
"The AAA rating is not guaranteed forever," said Hess of Moody's. "We will be looking for further measures over the next few years."
Documentary tells Hanford story
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
September 9, 2013
The history of the Hanford nuclear reservation is traced in a new documentary that takes viewers back to World War II with archival film footage and photographs.
The hourlong documentary, a project of Oregon Public Broadcasting for its Oregon Experience program, will be shown at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Drive. Executive producer Nadine Jelsing will take questions after the screening.
The program will air on public TV stations KTNW and KWSU at 7 p.m. Monday and repeat at 9 p.m. the same night.
Jelsing started thinking about a documentary after she took the Department of Energy public tour of Hanford and Hanford's B Reactor, she said.
She had heard of Hanford, but really did not understand what it was or how big it was, she said. The nuclear reservation covers 586 square miles.
"After I took the tour, I was just amazed," she said.
Hanford frequently is in the news as the nation spends about $2 billion annually on environmental cleanup of contamination left from the past plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons program. But Jelsing wanted to focus on its history.
The combination of WWII and Cold War history and the secretiveness of the Hanford project made the documentary one of the most fascinating shows she has worked on since Oregon Experience was launched in 2006, Jelsing said.
The video includes recent footage shot at Hanford and inside Hanford's historic B Reactor and T Plant. But it also depends heavily on historic films, photos and Dupus Boomer cartoons collected by Oregon Public Broadcasting.
Jelsing spent about six months on the film, figuring out how to tell the story of how the United States quickly and secretly built a complex in the desert with 50,000 workers to produce plutonium on a production scale for the first time. She also wanted to incorporate enough science to explain the engineering feat pulled off by wartime workers.
In the film, early Hanford workers and area residents, historian Michele Gerber and current Hanford officials tell the story of Hanford from World War II through the arms buildup of the Cold War.
"It was the biggest, most highly classified project of World War II," says Gerber at the start of the film. "It was more classified than the Normandy invasion."
After the remote location was selected, a meeting was called at one of the grange halls in 1943. Farmers were told they needed to be gone in three weeks to make way for a war effort project, Claude Rawlins said in the film.
"People were angry," said Rawlins, whose parents farmed on land that would become part of Hanford. "They were upset that their whole lives were being turned upside down. And there was no cash offer. We didn't get paid until years after."
From March to September 1943, about 10,000 people a month were hired for what was the largest construction project in the world at the time, according to the film.
Fewer than a tenth of 1 percent of the work force knew what they were making.
Workers were moved around work sites so they could not learn enough about a facility to piece together information, said Russ Fabre, B Reactor tour manager.
The secret was revealed Aug. 6, 1945, when the United States released an atomic bomb powered by uranium over Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, an atomic bomb powered by Hanford plutonium was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
"We won the race of discovery against Germany," President Truman said, revealing there was a place called Hanford.
Hanford didn't close after the war ended. "It got bigger," Gerber said in the film.
Russia essentially had stolen the nuclear technology used at Hanford, said Steve Buckingham, a retired Hanford worker. Hanford produced increasing quantities of plutonium as military tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States escalated.
 |
|
More Information |
|
To help ensure that you receive all email with images correctly displayed, please add ecabulletin@aweber.com to your address book or contact list |
|
to the ECA Email Server |
|
If you have trouble viewing this email, view the online version |