ECA Update: December 5, 2012
Published: Wed, 12/05/12
Alternatives for Managing the Nation's Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites
The National Academies Report: Idaho may need to change nuclear cleanup agreement
Caleb James, NPG of Idaho Federal government must deal with nuclear waste: NARUC president Bid to Preserve Manhattan Project Sites in a Park Stirs Debate Manhattan Project Sites Part of Proposed Park Fiscal-Cliff Negotiations Have Become a Roller-Coaster Ride |
Jeremy Herb and Ramsey Cox, The Hill
December 4, 2012
The Senate on Tuesday passed a massive, wide-ranging $631 billion defense authorization bill that restores threatened Pentagon biofuels programs, issues new sanctions against Iran and changes U.S. detention policy for American citizens.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the Senate unanimously 98-0 after the bill was debated for five days and hundreds of amendments were considered on the floor.
The defense bill always enjoys broad bipartisan support, but the unanimous vote highlighted the lack of controversial issues this year that have made the bill sometimes divisive in past years.
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that the bill, which can tackle everything from military social policy to funding wars, had passed unanimously for only the second time in 51 years.
Before the vote for passage, Levin said he was "so proud our committee could keep the tradition of passing for 51 times a defense authorization bill."
The Pentagon policy bill now heads to a House-Senate conference committee, where there are numerous differences that must be resolved.
The two bills were roughly $3 billion apart after the Senate's version passed committee, with the House bill coming in at a higher topline than the Senate-passed version.
The Senate's bill reversed several policies that were in the House-passed bill, including restrictions on the military's use of biofuels and plans for an East Coast missile defense site.
The House bill includes policies that the Democratic-led Senate is opposed to, particularly on social issues, such as a ban on same-sex ceremonies on military bases and language that says military chaplains can't be punished for opposing same-sex marriage.
The Senate bill also included a new round of Iran sanctions, a "permanent ban" on transferring detainees from Guantánamo and prohibitions on the military detention of U.S. citizens.
Besides the conflicts with the House, the Senate's defense bill reversed several policies the Obama administration requested in its Pentagon budget. The Senate measure rolled back proposed cuts to the Air National Guard and TRICARE fee increases, prohibited funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and included unrequested modernization funds for the M-1 Abrams tank.
The White House threatened to veto the bill over the changes to the Pentagon's proposed budget as well as the restriction on using funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees.
The administration's veto threat came before the bill's Guantánamo transfer restrictions became even stronger after the Senate approved an amendment from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.).
Nonetheless, the differences between the House, Senate and administration are not likely to derail the bill that has passed for 50 straight years.
"While there are difference between the bills, there doesn't appear to be anything that is insurmountable or will keep the conference committee from resolving the differences," said a Republican House aide.
Levin and Armed Services ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) both expressed confidence that the bill would get done despite the differences between the chambers. Levin said that the biggest challenge was time, and noted that the committees' staffs have already started work on the final bill.
The Senate's defense bill authorized about $525 billion Pentagon spending, $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan and $18 billion funding in the Energy Department.
The bill sets Pentagon policy and authorizes key funding priorities for the military, such as troop pay raises and funding for weapons programs.
While the defense bill did ultimately pass, it was a long and often-tenuous journey since the committee voted it through in May.
Levin and McCain urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for months to put the authorization bill on the floor, but he chose to wait until after the election.
Reid asked the Armed Services chiefs to get the bill done in three days during the lame-duck session, but objections from Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) -- along with a flood of hundreds of amendments -- prevented that from happening.
Coburn objected after his amendment, which barred a mental-illness diagnosis from preventing veterans from owning guns unless a judge orders it, was objected to. Coburn eventually dropped the objection, and is working with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to find a compromise on the amendment.
Levin joked with Reid after the bill had managed to pass in three days -- because the Senate doesn't count half-days.
The most contentious debate on the floor surrounded U.S. detention policies, which had sparked a month-long fight between lawmakers and the White House last year.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment to bar military detention for U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, a measure she said would correct the language in the 2012 bill.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and McCain and Ayotte have staunchly defended the necessity of military detention to help win the global war on terror.
But McCain, Graham and Levin all wound up supporting Feinstein's amendment -- only after arguing that her amendment did in fact allow the detention of U.S. citizens to continue. The amendment passed 67-29.
On killing funding for MEADS, one of the issues over which the White House threatened a veto, Levin told reporters Tuesday that while it wasn't "a done deal" to remain in the bill, the issue had broad support in Congress.
"We feel strongly that it's a waste of money," Levin said.
The Iran amendment, submitted by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would tighten economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. It passed 94-0.
Menendez also passed an Iran sanctions amendment on last year's defense authorization bill.
In the bill's final vote before passage, the Senate approved an amendment from McCain and others requiring a Pentagon report on options for a no-fly zone in Syria, which passed 92-6.
Senate Defense Authorization Act Contains Numerous NNSA Provisions
ECA
The Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3254) passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) in May 2012 contained several provisions regarding NNSA. The bill passed by the full Senate on December 4, 2012 retains those provisions, plus the addition of several new NNSA provisions added via the amendment process:
Report on Consolidation of NNSA Facilities
Provision
This section would require the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to report to the congressional defense committees on the feasibility of consolidation in the NNSA Complex if excess facilities exist and consolidation would reduce cost. If the NWC finds further consolidation is feasible, the report is directed to recommend a process for consolidation.
Provision
This section would require the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to report to the congressional defense committees on the feasibility of consolidation in the NNSA Complex if excess facilities exist and consolidation would reduce cost. If the NWC finds further consolidation is feasible, the report is directed to recommend a process for consolidation.
Study of NNSA Cost Estimating Practices
Item of Special Interest
The Item of Special Interest, "General Accountability Office Study of National Nuclear Security Administration Cost Estimating Practices," would direct the GAO to conduct an audit of the cost estimating practices of the NNSA with recommendations to bring the NNSA into compliance with generally accepted cost estimating practices used for similar projects.
Item of Special Interest
The Item of Special Interest, "General Accountability Office Study of National Nuclear Security Administration Cost Estimating Practices," would direct the GAO to conduct an audit of the cost estimating practices of the NNSA with recommendations to bring the NNSA into compliance with generally accepted cost estimating practices used for similar projects.
Independence of NNSA
Item of Special Interest
The Item of Special Interest, "Independence of the National Nuclear Security Administration," would request that the NWC evaluate how NNSA maintain its semi-independent nature from DOE. This request comes due to the SASC's finding that NNSA "is often burdened with extra responsibilities assigned by the Secretary of Energy."
Item of Special Interest
The Item of Special Interest, "Independence of the National Nuclear Security Administration," would request that the NWC evaluate how NNSA maintain its semi-independent nature from DOE. This request comes due to the SASC's finding that NNSA "is often burdened with extra responsibilities assigned by the Secretary of Energy."
NNSA Congressional Advisory Panel
S. Amdt. 2927, LINK
To establish a congressional advisory panel on revising the governance structure of NNSA to permit it to operate more effectively and independently of DOE.
S. Amdt. 2927, LINK
To establish a congressional advisory panel on revising the governance structure of NNSA to permit it to operate more effectively and independently of DOE.
NNSA Additional Oversight
S. Amdt. 3279, LINK
To express the sense of Congress that external and independent oversight of NNSA by DOE is critical to the mission of protecting the United States nuclear security enterprise.
S. Amdt. 3279, LINK
To express the sense of Congress that external and independent oversight of NNSA by DOE is critical to the mission of protecting the United States nuclear security enterprise.
Congressional Panel Would Study Potential Changes to Weapons Complex
Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
December 5, 2012
Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
December 5, 2012
Amid controversy over whether Energy Department oversight should be curtailed, the Senate has called for a special congressional panel to study whether the governing structure of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex should be changed.
The department's semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration today oversees the nationwide system of facilities charged with researching, maintaining, and updating the nation's nuclear arsenal.
The House of Representatives' 2013 defense authorization bill would limit DOE oversight of NNSA operations, a change that some House Republicans argue is necessary because of delays and cost overruns associated with various arms programs.
The version of the defense bill that the Senate approved on Tuesday does not include such changes, which other House Republicans and Democrats have said are imprudent given recent security breaches at NNSA facilities. However, the Senate bill does include an amendment that would establish a committee of experts to consider the matter, along with other issues.
As originally introduced by Senator Jon Kyl, the amendment would have focused the committee on the question of whether NNSA operations should be independent of the Energy Department. The amendment was modified after negotiations with Senate Democrats, making the question of autonomy among one of several issues the panel would consider, rather than the main focus.
Lawmakers from both chambers will now meet in conference committee to prepare a final version of the bill, which would cover NNSA national security operations. The Senate version authorizes $631 billion in defense spending. The White House has threatened to veto any bill that contains certain measures from both chambers.
If agreed to by House members in conference committee, the focus of the new panel would be "to assess the feasibility and advisability of, and make recommendations with respect to, revising the governance structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration ... to permit the [agency] to operate more effectively," according to the Senate amendment.
A subset of issues the panel would look at includes "whether the [National Nuclear Security] Administration should operate more independently of the Department of Energy while reporting to the president through the secretary of Energy." It also includes a study of "the relationship of the Administration to the National Security Council, the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies."
The question of whether NNSA nonproliferation activities should be transferred to another agency would also be addressed. The panel would additionally examine whether legislative or regulatory changes are needed "to improve contracting best practices in order to reduce the cost of programs without eroding mission requirements," among other issues.
The 12-member advisory panel, to be appointed by congressional leaders of both parties, would have 120 days to draft an interim report and a year to make its final recommendations.
The Senate on Monday approved another amendment to the defense bill that would attach legislation the Senate passed last year in an effort to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium in medical-isotope production. The bill would ban HEU exports for that purpose, and promote U.S. projects aimed at producing the isotopes with more proliferation-resistant lowly enriched uranium. The House has not acted on companion legislation to the stand-alone version, but will now have to address the issue in conference with the Senate on the defense bill.
Since the Senate passed its bill, some observers have raised concerns that the legislation does not address the potential for Russia to undercut the market for medical isotopes produced with lowly enriched uranium by flooding the market with cheaper isotopes produced in the standard manner. The Obama administration has since taken steps to address this issue, by proposing to pay health care providers more for conducting diagnostic procedures on Medicare patients using LEU-derived isotopes. Industry officials, though, have raised concerns that the plan might not be effective.
The Senate defense bill does not include an amendment offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley, that would have attached his version of contentious nuclear terrorism legislation. The upper chamber never voted on the measure, and Grassley issued a statement on Tuesday saying the amendment "was blocked" by Democrats.
The legislation is meant to ensure that the United States meets legal standards mandated by the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Terrorism, which requires the criminalization of possession and use of nuclear weapons and related material.
The measure would also bring the United States in line with a 2005 amendment to the Convention of the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The accord originally focused on protecting international shipments of civilian nuclear material, but the change would add security standards for domestic storage, use, and transfer of nuclear material to the pact.
While Senate Democrats have sought to approve the version of the nuclear-security bill already passed by the House, Grassley has complained that the House version lacks provisions that would explicitly apply the death penalty to nuclear crimes and extend federal wiretapping authorities.
"Swift implementation of these treaties is important to national security," Grassley said in prepared comments. "It's unfortunate that partisan politics won the day in getting these treaties implemented."
EM Message Regarding the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site
DOE-EM
DOE-EM
DOE's Office of Environmental Management, in cooperation with the Office of General Counsel, expects to soon file the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DOE expects EPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on Friday of the following week confirming that the EIS has been completed. Doe is the lead preparing agency, while the Washington State Department of Ecology and EPA are cooperating agencies.
The Final TC&WM EIS analyzes alternatives for three programmatic areas at Hanford: Retrieving, and managing waste from 177 underground storage tanks at Hanford and closure of 149 of the tanks which are single-shell tanks; decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility and its auxiliary facilities; and ongoing and expanded solid waste management operations on the Hanford Site including the disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW) and limited volumes of LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites in an Integrated Disposal Facility.
The EIS identifies DOE's preferred alternatives in each of the three areas listed above and is a significant step toward advancing DOE's environmental cleanup program at the Hanford Site. DOE expects to issue a Record(s) of Decision for each of the three areas no sooner than 30 days after EPA's Notice of Availability.
The EIS will be available on the DOE Web site for the National Environmental Policy Act at http://energy.gov/nepa. The EIS will also be available on the Web site for Hanford at http://www.hanford.gov/.
Alternatives for Managing the Nation's Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites
The National Academies
WEBINAR
The National Academies
WEBINAR
Across the United States, thousands of hazardous waste sites are contaminated with chemicals that prevent the underlying groundwater from meeting drinking water standards. These include Superfund sites and other facilities that handle and dispose of hazardous waste, active and inactive dry cleaners, and leaking underground storage tanks; many are at federal facilities such as military installations. While many sites have been closed over the past 30 years through cleanup programs run by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, and other state and federal agencies, the remaining caseload is much more difficult to address because the nature of the contamination and subsurface conditions make it difficult to achieve drinking water standards in the affected groundwater.
Alternatives for Managing the Nation's Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites estimates that at least 126,000 sites across the U.S. still have contaminated groundwater, and their closure is expected to cost at least $110 billion to $127 billion. About 10 percent of these sites are considered "complex," meaning restoration is unlikely to be achieved in the next 50 to 100 years due to technological limitations. At sites where contaminant concentrations have plateaued at levels above cleanup goals despite active efforts, the report recommends evaluating whether the sites should transition to long-term management, where risks would be monitored and harmful exposures prevented, but at reduced costs.
Key Findings
Report: Idaho may need to change nuclear cleanup agreement
Caleb James, NPG of Idaho
December 4, 2012
BOISE, Idaho - Idaho's nuclear future has been the ongoing topic of discussion and debate for Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's Leadership in Nuclear Energy Commission.
Now the commission is offering its recommendations for Idaho in a 52-page report issued Monday.
The report is merely a draft of recommendations to the Idaho Legislature, and it makes bold statements, even recommending to change a landmark waste clean-up agreement.
"This is the fork in the road, I believe," said Lane Allgood, director of Partnership for Science and Technology. "More than likely not all of the DOE national labs are going to survive, and as stakeholders, I believe that we need to make sure ours is one that does."
Allgood said Idaho should do whatever it can to ensure the state's nuclear future as other states like South Carolina jockey for better positions in the country's nuclear efforts.
Allgood said that would be disastrous for a state depending on $3.5 billion from the nuclear energy industry. But the LINE Commission report says Idaho can't stay in the game without some changes. It even recommends changing the landmark 1995 settlement agreement requiring Idaho's nuclear waste out of the state by 2035.
With the closure of Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, Idaho may be in the perfect position to accept and store waste.
The LINE report doesn't dance around the issue either:
"If Idaho is not willing to consider changes to the 1995 settlement agreement, it is instead willing to allow (the Idaho Nuclear Laboratory) to lose its designation as the lead nuclear energy laboratory," the commission said.
In a statement, John Grossenbacher, INL Laboratory director, said the issue is worth looking into:
"Both the LINE Commission and its subcommittees discussed whether or not INL could lose research opportunities if the state is unwilling to consider changes to the Settlement Agreement. One example is a proposed research effort related to dry storage of today's high-burnup commercial reactor fuel. The nuclear industry and its regulator need to better understand how today's used fuel will behave under decades-long dry storage conditions. Change to the settlement agreement would be required to bring in to Idaho the 30 to 60 tons of commercial fuel necessary to accomplish this work. Does the state want to support that work and INL's leadership role? If the answer is no, then this type of work will be done elsewhere. This is the kind of issue the state needs to discuss."
But not everyone agrees with the report's recommendations.
"The LINE Commission is insisting on preparing for a nuclear future that is not grounded in economic or political reality," said Liz Woodruff, executive director of the Snake River Alliance. "There is not a new federal policy to respond to and there are no economic resources available for the projects the commission supports. This conversation is premature. The federal government has made a commitment to the people of Idaho to clean up decades of nuclear contamination of our land and above our largest source of fresh water. That is where our attention should be focused. Nuclear waste is not an economic opportunity for Idaho and it never will be."
Read the commission's full report at http://goo.gl/2tOH9. Information on how to submit comments on the report can be found at Page iv.
Federal government must deal with nuclear waste: NARUC president
Platts
December 3, 2012
The new president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners said Monday the federal government needs to address the nuclear waste issue sooner, not later.
"To have a dead program with money being paid into it is the wrong policy," NARUC President Philip Jones said at a press conference in Washington.
In his first press conference since his election in November, Jones said the US Congress, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission need to address how the country is going to permanently store nuclear waste "because our ratepayers are paying for it," he said.
"The 1 mill per kilowatt-hour fee has been accumulating large amounts of money that is not being used for the purpose of disposal of nuclear waste," he said. "So they have our money and we have our waste and that is not acceptable to members of NARUC."
NARUC has estimated the fee has raised $30 billion over the past 30 years.
Jones, a member of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, said the association would support a legislative approach that would incorporate some of the recommendations on waste fuel storage made in 2010 by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
On another matter, Jones said the "shale gas revolution" has driven down the wholesale price of natural gas and made it more difficult for renewable energy resources to compete in the electric generation market.
"The only reason my state is putting renewables into our resource mix for our utilities is because of the renewable portfolio standard," he said.
The standard mandates the electric utilities generate 9% of their electricity with renewable energy by 2015.
"If you put out a request for a proposal for a new generation plant, natural gas combined cycle will win hands down," he said.
Bid to Preserve Manhattan Project Sites in a Park Stirs Debate
William J. Broad, The New York Times
December 3, 2012
A plan now before Congress would create a national park spread over three states to protect the aging remnants of the atomic bomb project from World War II, including an isolated cabin where grim findings threw the secretive effort into a panic.
Scientists used the remote cabin in the seclusion of Los Alamos, N.M., as the administrative base for a critical experiment to see if plutonium could be used to fuel the bomb. Early in 1944, sensitive measurements unexpectedly showed that the silvery metal underwent a high rate of spontaneous fission -- a natural process of atoms splitting in two.
That meant the project's design for a plutonium bomb would fail. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the project's scientific head, was so dismayed that he considered resigning.
But he and his colleagues pressed ahead with a new design. On July 16, 1945, the world's first atom bomb -- a lump of plutonium at its core -- illuminated the darkness of the central New Mexican desert with a flash of light brighter than the sun.
The plan for a Manhattan Project National Historical Park would preserve that log cabin and hundreds of other buildings and artifacts scattered across New Mexico, Washington and Tennessee -- among them the rustic Los Alamos home of Dr. Oppenheimer and his wife, Kitty, and a large Quonset hut, also in New Mexico, where scientists assembled components for the plutonium bomb dropped on Japan.
"It's a way to help educate the next generation," said Cynthia C. Kelly, president of the Atomic Heritage Foundation, a private group in Washington that helped develop the preservation plan.
Jonathan B. Jarvis, director of the National Park Service, said the narrative of the bomb's creation deserved a wide audience.
"There is no better place to tell a story than where it happened," Mr. Jarvis said in a statement. "The National Park Service will be proud to interpret these Manhattan Project sites and unlock their stories in the years ahead."
But critics have faulted the plan as celebrating a weapon of mass destruction, and have argued that the government should avoid that kind of advocacy.
Historians and federal agencies reply that preservation does not imply moral endorsement, and that the remains of so monumental a project should be saved as a way to encourage comprehension and public discussion.
Supporters of the atomic park are pressing for a vote on the measure in the expiring 112th Congress. The House, influenced by the critics, rejected the plan in September, and advocates are re-engaging members with new arguments in an effort to tip the balance of opinion in their favor.
"Both the House and Senate had hearings," Ms. Kelly said in an interview. "We're guardedly optimistic."
The bills are sponsored by a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers, mainly from the three states, led in the Senate by Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a Democrat, and in the House of Representatives by Doc Hastings of Washington, a Republican.
The plan has been in development for more than a decade. It began when the federal Energy Department -- a descendant of the Manhattan Project that owns many of the sites -- asked for guidance from the government's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
In 2001, the council's panel of distinguished experts recommended that the sites be established "as a collective unit administered for preservation, commemoration, and public interpretation in cooperation with the National Park Service."
In 2004, Congress directed the secretary of the interior to study the park's feasibility, in consultation with the secretary of energy. Last year, Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, wrote to Congress recommending its establishment.
He called the bomb's development "one of the most transformative events in our nation's history," noting that it ushered in the atomic age, changed the international role of the United States and helped set the stage for the cold war.
Supporters of the park argue that preserving and managing the atomic sites is Washington's least expensive option. Five years of National Park Service care, they say, would cost $21 million; demolishing the buildings and atomic sites would run to $200 million.
Ms. Kelly, of the Atomic Heritage Foundation, said the overall goal was commemoration, not celebration. She argued that even regrettable aspects of history -- like the American Indian massacres and Civil War battles -- deserved site preservation and cultural remembrance.
"This is a major chapter of American and world history," she said. "We should preserve what's left."
Manhattan Project Sites Part of Proposed Park
Ted Robbins, NPR
December 4, 2012
Congress is considering whether to turn three top-secret sites involved with creating the atomic bomb into one of the country's most unusual national parks.
The Manhattan Project -- the U.S. program to design and build the first atomic bomb during World War II -- largely took place at three sites: Los Alamos, N.M.; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and Hanford, Wash. On July 16, 1945, the first test of an atomic bomb took place at a site in the southern New Mexico desert. Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, Japan, were bombed less than a month after the test.
In 1942, the Army had taken over a boys school in the forests of northern New Mexico. Dozens of the world's most brilliant scientists, led by physicist Robert Oppenheimer, came to Los Alamos to design the weapon. Over the decades, though, the Manhattan Project buildings deteriorated.
Ellen McGehee is the Los Alamos National Laboratory's official historian. She opens the door into a dark concrete bunker. The walls are still painted the light green anyone who went to school or worked in a government building back then would recognize.
"This main room here is where they did the assembly work for the 'Little Boy' weapon," she says.
Little Boy was the nickname given to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Construction crews at Los Alamos National Laboratory are already doing historic restoration. And McGehee is delighted to show off the restricted sites, though it's not likely the public will get this kind of access. That's because scientists are still doing all kinds of weapons research at the Los Alamos labs. Instead, the Park Service would build a visitor center in the nearby town of Los Alamos. There are already a science museum and a historical museum there -- though they mostly chronicle the science of nuclear weapons and downplay the ethics of them. The lab might also conduct tours several times a year or move fencing so the historic sites are outside the restricted area.
A bill to create the Manhattan Project National Park was defeated in the House in September.
"We're talking about the devastation of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- hundreds of thousands killed, $10 trillion Cold War between the U.S. and Russia, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons which today threaten the existence of the world -- and this is something we should celebrate?" asks Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of the bill's critics.
Supporters in Congress have said they'll try again, possibly before the end of this year.
A park would be a commemoration, not a celebration, says Heather McClenahan, director of the Los Alamos Historical Society. She points out there are national parks commemorating slavery, Civil War battles and American Indian massacres.
"It's a chance to say, 'Why did we do this? What were the good things that happened? What were the bad? How do we learn lessons from the past? How do we not ever have to use an atomic bomb in warfare again?' " McClenahan says.
Tough questions to ask in a place where scientists are doing ongoing weapons research -- but maybe necessary questions if Los Alamos and the other Manhattan Project sites are going to become national parks.
Fiscal-Cliff Negotiations Have Become a Roller-Coaster Ride
Charlie Cook, National Journal
December 3, 2012
It is a source of tremendous amusement to me that one day of every week contains a spate of news stories suggesting movement toward a tax and budget deal, only to be followed the next week by stories declaring that imminent disaster lies ahead and an apocalyptic cliff dive is just around the corner. It's hard to figure out whom to feel more sorry for: the eternal optimists who think that contrary to practically anything that has ever happened in Washington, something this big would ever be quick and easy to resolve; or the profound pessimists who cannot imagine a deal under any circumstance; or, for that matter, the reporters who alternately buy into one scenario or the other.
There are profound philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals--and, yes, Republicans and Democrats--on the best course of action. There are honorable people on both sides with legitimate differences in their points of view. There are also serious political consequences to be weighed--considerations that alone would cause many (if not most) lawmakers to hesitate before embracing a compromise. Anyone who thought that budget sequestration and expiration of the Bush tax cuts would be resolved by New Year's Eve should have a court-appointed guardian look after their affairs and make all decisions for them.
At the same time, anyone who believes that no agreement is likely or possible in the next six or eight months--that there will be no patching over of sequestration until a larger deal is done, that Congress and the president are locked into a barrel and heading over a fiscal Niagara Falls--ought to put on an Eeyore costume and fret over the next meteor shower headed toward Earth, which they no doubt will earnestly believe will wipe out mankind. They are just that kind of person.
This whole process is going to be long, difficult, frustrating, and painful. Moods will rise and fall, and my guess is that the financial markets may well have some pretty exciting days, in the same ways that roller coasters are alternately exhilarating and terrifying.
My hunch is that some kind of stopgap deal will be done to either head off sequestration or control it so that the across-the-board federal spending cuts to defense and domestic programs (except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a few others) will not automatically kick in. That will enable reaching a bigger agreement early next year. It would not surprise me to see the full array of Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, only increasing the pressure on Republicans to cut some kind of a deal that they would have previously considered unacceptable. We will likely see a series of budget deals, each hard fought, gradually taking in more elements until a "grand bargain" is finally reached. The agreement will cover major discretionary spending and entitlement cuts and significant increases in revenue, though the proportion of tax-expenditure reductions versus tax-rate increases is very much up in the air. All of these deals, though, will involve a continuous series of jaw-dropping and stomach-churning roller-coaster rides, and people should reconcile themselves now to the likelihood of these events.
While, technically speaking, November's election produced no changes in leadership--the White House and Senate are still in Democratic hands, and the House is still under GOP control--the zeitgeist seems very different. The testosterone levels on the Republican side are dramatically lower than two years or, for that matter, two months ago. Although it is not unfair for Republicans to see last week's opening offer from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as little short of an insult, one gets the sense that Democrats know they will end up with a deal that looks nothing like that.
The focus is now on how Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders will sell significant revenue increases to some of the more exotic, very conservative members of their House and Senate conferences, and how President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders will sell equally unpalatable entitlement changes to their equally exotic liberal colleagues. It is totally unrealistic for Democrats to expect Republicans to jump off their tax cliff without Democrats having to jump off their entitlement cliff. The "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable" attitude isn't going to work. The adults on each side seem to instinctively know that. But unfortunately there are more than just adults in the room on both sides and we have certainly not heard the last of the partisan posturing and sabre rattling.
The real question is, how much stress will be put on our exceedingly fragile economy? How much will people's 401(k) and other retirement savings take a beating? And how horrific will this whole process be before there is a final agreement? Hiring and investment decisions by business leaders and spending by consumers will be held hostage, swung back and forth by the daily advances and setbacks.
 |
|
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 |
|
ECA Board
Election Notice
ECA Executive Committee elections will be held on December 12, 2012.
If you would like to nominate someone or if you are interested in running for a position, please contact Bob Thompson (BThompson@ci.richland.wa.us), Amy Fitzgerald (AFitzgerald@cortn.org), or Pam Brown-Larsen (PBrown@ci.richland.wa.us).
Current ECA Board Nominations
Chair: Mayor Tom Beehan, Oak Ridge, TN
Vice Chair: Council Member Chuck Smith, Aiken County, SC
Secretary: Mayor Steve Young, Kennewick, WA
Treasurer: County Councilor Fran Berting, Los Alamos, NM |