Lawmakers Challenge Obama’s Spending Authority to Halt Plutonium Project

Global Security Newswire Staff
April 1, 2014, 9:36 a.m.

Twenty-one law­makers on Monday said Pres­id­ent Obama can­not draw from a plutoni­um-con­ver­sion plant’s con­struc­tion fund to keep the pro­ject on hold.

The En­ergy De­part­ment’s 2015 budget pro­pos­al calls for paus­ing work on the un­fin­ished plant, which would con­vert bomb plutoni­um in­to mixed-ox­ide re­act­or fuel at the Sa­van­nah River Site in South Car­o­lina. The MOX fa­cil­ity con­struc­tion began after Wash­ing­ton and Mo­scow agreed to be­gin in 2018 to elim­in­ate plutoni­um from their stock­piles.

Con­gress “ex­pli­citly” des­ig­nated funds in fisc­al 2014 for “con­struc­tion” of the fa­cil­ity, the le­gis­lat­ors said in a let­ter to En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Ern­est Mon­iz. Missive sign­ers in­cluded South Car­o­lina’s sev­en House rep­res­ent­at­ives, as well as law­makers from Flor­ida, Geor­gia, Louisi­ana, Ten­ness­ee, North Car­o­lina, Vir­gin­ia and Wash­ing­ton state.

“The funds were not au­thor­ized or ap­pro­pri­ated for cold-standby, and we re­quest they be used only for con­struc­tion as Con­gress in­ten­ded,” the let­ter says. “The in­tent of Con­gress is be­ing ig­nored and as a res­ult we may see a usurp­a­tion of Con­gress’ power of the purse.”

The law­makers ad­ded they had “nev­er seen” how the Army Corps of En­gin­eers de­term­ined that the MOX plant would cost $30 bil­lion to build and main­tain, and they pressed for dis­clos­ure of the cal­cu­la­tions.

“Moreover, we re­quest a study to ana­lyze the cost as­so­ci­ated with pla­cing MOX in­to cold-standby, which is es­tim­ated to be between $700 and $900 mil­lion,” they wrote.

Mean­while, con­struc­tion of the MOX fa­cil­ity is pro­ceed­ing, us­ing cur­rent-year funds, the Au­gusta Chron­icle re­por­ted on Monday.

“We con­tin­ue build­ing the MOX Fuel Fab­ric­a­tion Fa­cil­ity un­der our [fisc­al year] 2014 budget and dir­ec­tion,” Kelly Trice, pres­id­ent of Shaw Areva MOX Ser­vices, said in a state­ment to site work­ers.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×