 | |
| GOP operatives crash the tea party Tea partiers gather at the Tea Party Express national bus tour rally at the Illinois State Fairgrounds.  | |
| Just days after the first widespread tea party demonstrators hit the streets a year ago Thursday, Joe Wierzbicki, a Republican political consultant with the Sacramento firm Russo Marsh + Rogers, made a proposal to his colleagues that he said could “give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus.” The proposal, obtained by POLITICO, was for a nationwide tea party bus tour, to be called the Tea Party Express, which over the past seven months has become among the most identifiable brands of the tea party movement. Buses emblazoned with the Tea Party Express logo have brought speakers and entertainers to rallies in dozens of small towns and big cities, including one in Boston on Wednesday that will feature former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Aided by campaign-style advance work and event planning, slick ads cut by Russo Marsh, impressive crowds and a savvy media operation, the political action committee run by Wierzbicki, Russo Marsh founder Sal Russo and a handful of other Republican operatives has also emerged as among the prolific fundraising vehicles under the tea party banner. Known as Our Country Deserves Better when it was founded during the 2008 election as a vehicle to oppose Barack Obama’s campaign for president, the PAC saw its fundraising more than quadruple after it took the Tea Party Express public in July, raising nearly $2.7 million in roughly the following six months, compared with less than $600,000 in the preceding six months, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Its fundraising success has made the PAC — which formally filed with the FEC in October to change its name to “Our Country Deserves Better PAC–TeaPartyExpress.org” — a power player in the tea party and beyond, airing hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads supporting Republican campaigns such as Scott Brown’s successful special election for Senate in Massachusetts and blasting Democratic ones, such as Senate Majority Leader Reid’s reelection bid in Nevada. And that fundraising success has also meant a brisk business for Russo March, which essentially runs the PAC. In that capacity, Russo Marsh and a sister firm called King Media Group have received $1.9 million of the $4.1 million in payments made by the committee — a financial relationship that is not uncommon between political action committees run by consultants and their consulting firms. But the Tea Party Express’s high profile has angered tea party leaders who are suspicious of its big payments to Russo Marsh, view the bus tours as distractions from meaningful grass-roots organizing headed into the 2010 midterm elections and say the Republican ties of both the firm and PAC are wrong for a movement that has prided itself on independence from the political establishment and has fiercely rejected what it sees as GOP efforts to co-opt it. “We’ve worked hard to distance ourselves from the Tea Party Express because of their close affiliation with the Republican Party, the Republican establishment and their PAC,” said Debbie Dooley, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, a national umbrella group of local activists. The Patriots have supported a strict nonpartisan posture but also have struggled to raise money, and Dooley contends that’s partly because of Tea Party Express. “When people donate to Tea Party Express, they think that they are donating to a tea party, because they don’t read the fine print at the bottom of their e-mails that says it is a PAC,” she said. “And that hurts the local grass-roots tea party organizers, since a lot of that is actually taking some money away from them.” Adds Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, a nonprofit group that trains local tea party organizers: “I’m concerned that they’re using (Tea Party Express) as a marketing gimmick to line the pockets of consultants instead of actually helping the tea party movement. People are already pretty fired up, so enough protesting and rallying — they need to be empowered to go back and organize their communities.” In a draft of his proposal last April, Wierzbicki seemed to anticipate some of the criticism, broaching the idea of recruiting Eric Odom and Michael Patrick Leahy, among the organizers of the April 15, 2009, rallies, or FreedomWorks, the Washington-based nonprofit that has helped organize local tea party groups and events across the country. “We can probably pull off a phenomenally successful tour without these big-ego establishment types,” Wierzbicki wrote in his proposal, cautioning his colleagues that in any effort to woo them “We have to be very, very careful about discussing amongst ourselves anyone we include ‘outside of the family’ because quite frankly, we are not only not part of the political establishment or conservative establishment, but we are also sadly not currently a part of the ‘tea party’ establishment.” Wierzbicki posited that his PAC’s lack of establishment tea party backing could be offset by winning over “local tea party leaders and grass-roots conservatives” and also by generating buzz including “mentions and possibly even promotion from conservative/pro-tea party bloggers, talk radio hosts, Fox News commentators, etc…” And the PAC’s focus had to change to reflect the tea party movement. Wierzbicki told POLITICO that Our Country Deserves Better did this primarily by eschewing some of the national security and social issues on which it focused during the campaign in favor of a narrower concentration on the fiscal issues that unite much of the tea party movement. But he defends the PAC as having “a commitment to honoring the principles of the tea party movement.” “There is an integrity to the work we do with Tea Party Express,” said Wierzbicki, asserting the Express adheres to the five principles emblazoned on the side of its bus, which he summarized as “end the bailouts, lower taxes, stop government-run health care, end the out-of-control deficits and reduce the size and intrusiveness of the federal government.” Before its tea party days, however, the PAC aired ads praising Palin, both during and after her unsuccessful GOP vice presidential campaign, “for serving the people of America with a servant’s heart,” standing up to “the liberal media” and teaching her son about “the honor and valor of serving in our nation’s armed forces.” Other Our Country ads aggressively attacked Obama, sometimes using themes Palin’s running mate, Republican presidential candidate John McCain, had declared out of bounds. One reminded voters of “hateful sermons from Obama's pastor for over 20 years,” while footage played featuring former Obama pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaching the words “God damn America!” Russo — who helped elect former Govs. George Deukmejian of California and George Pataki of New York, among other Republicans, and helped engineer the recall of Democratic California Gov. Gray Davis — said he was actually planning to shutter Our Country Deserves Better after the 2008 election, “but so many people were telling us that somebody had to stay active and do something. So we decided that we would do that, but we weren’t clear on exactly what we would do.” When the tea party movement picked up steam, Russo said, it made sense for the PAC to join in. “We had a good running start,” he said. Russo brought with him some of old tricks. The bus tour, for example, mirrored the cross-country “Stop Obama Tour” in which a bus emblazoned with pictures of McCain and Palin flanking the Our Country Deserves Better PAC logo, stopped at 30 pro-McCain/Palin rallies during the final two weeks of October 2008. And then, as now, a substantial portion of the PAC’s spending goes through Russo Marsh and, to a lesser extent, through King Media. The PAC paid Russo Marsh $135,000 in consulting fees and commissions, $400,000 for e-mail and Web newsletters and at least $650,000 to produce and place television advertisements. Though some of those sums reflect payments for e-mail address list rentals and television airtime that were passed along to list vendors and television stations, respectively, many of the blast e-mails and television ads served to drum up more attention and cash for the PAC, even as they also touted Republican candidates or attacked Democratic ones. “Go to OurCountryPAC.org and help us defeat Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats,” one pre-tea party PAC ad instructed viewers. A more recent offering urged viewers to “Join the Tea Party Express as we send Bart Stupak packing for an early retirement. Log on to TeaPartyExpress.org as we fight to defeat Bart Stupak.” Kelly Eustis, who was fired from his job as the Our Country Deserves Better’s political director in October, said the PAC — and particularly the Tea Party Express aspect of it — “is keeping the firm afloat.” Eustis, who started his own PAC and also has been retained to do fundraising consulting for rival tea party groups, said that while he was at Our Country Deserves Better, his colleagues regarded the tea party as “a brand name. We stole the brand name to make money.” And he charged Russo and Wierzbicki with “basically hijacking the movement for their personal and business gains without regard for real tea party activists.” Russo countered “we’re hardly making any money at all. I’m a cause-oriented person. This is not a lucrative business proposition. It’s a cause for me. I believe in what I’m doing.” As for the bus tours, Russo said “they work for us. It’s a great vehicle to go to a lot of places and get a lot of people involved and engaged. I am proud of what we do. Who else goes out there and motivates people and insinuates involvement and activity and actually is making a difference in what is going on?” |
Thursday, April 15, 2010
GOP operatives crash the tea party
Obama dares Republicans to fight Wall St. bill
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN & GLENN THRUSH | 4/14/10 7:15 PM EDT
For weeks, the White House strategy on financial regulatory reform remained an open question: Would President Barack Obama water down his bill just to get something passed — the way he did on health care?
A Palinesque “Hell no!” was the answer coming from the White House on Wednesday as the president, his senior aides and his allies on Capitol Hill issued an ultimatum to Republicans fighting Democrats’ plans to overhaul financial oversight.
“For the president, you have to be willing to accept a strong bill,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after Obama emerged from a contentious meeting with GOP congressional leaders.
“If the effort to get this close is simply to take steps to weaken that legislation, that’s not what the president is interested in.”
Democrats are so emboldened that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is prepared to bring the Banking Committee bill to the floor with no major concessions to Republicans and essentially dare them to vote against the measure, senior leadership aides said.
At a time when Wall Street is as reviled as government, Democrats are willing to gamble that at least one Republican — and maybe as many as a half-dozen — will break ranks. At the same time, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is betting he can hold his caucus together to deny Democrats even a single vote.
“It’s been two and a half years since this crisis started, more than a year since we first laid out a comprehensive set of reforms,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said during a rare appearance at the White House daily briefing alongside Gibbs.
“I think we know what we need to know. ... It’s just time to decide and time to move,” he added.
The hard-line, limited-compromise approach reflects a belief among Democrats, buoyed by recent polls, that they enjoy huge advantages on regulatory reform that eluded them on health care. Unless the GOP can succeed in painting the reform effort as a path to new bailouts — and Senate Republicans are trying to do just that — the politics of the issue seem to be almost entirely on the Democrats’ side.
But before they take on the minority, Senate Democrats are trying to smooth over internal conflicts. For weeks, White House officials have been quietly working with Senate leaders, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), on the list of amendments liberals plan to introduce when the measure comes to the floor.
The goal, according to several people close to the situation, is to green-light those amendments that force Republicans to take tough votes, while minimizing votes that divide the Democrats’ left and right wings.
In the meantime, McConnell has settled into his accustomed role as spoiler, trying to persuade the 41 members of the Republican conference to stick together in opposition to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s bill as it is currently written.
McConnell circulated a letter Wednesday that he hoped every Republican would sign, sending the message — as they did during the health care debate — that Republicans are united in opposition. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a potential swing vote, said he signed the letter, which asked Democrats to reopen negotiations.
“It appears the bipartisan talks have broken down,” McConnell said, after meeting for less than an hour with Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“The strings were kind of pulled by the Democratic leaders,” said McConnell, who added that Democrats “are trying to jam us” for political gain.
A seething Reid, squinting in the bright sunlight of the West Wing driveway, called McConnell’s claim that Democrats had abandoned talks a “figment of his imagination” and vowed to pass the overhaul quickly.
The standoff defined the parameters for what has turned into a sharply partisan debate as Obama pushes the Senate to deliver another major legislative achievement before Memorial Day. Democrats believe they can make Republicans fold, and Republicans expect to hold firm or risk losing any leverage they have left to change the bill.
“If we can get 41 votes, they’ll have to deal with us,” said Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee.
Three Republicans who have been targeted as potential swing votes — Brown, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and Maine Sen. Susan Collins — suggested they have no plans, at this point, to provide Democrats the crucial 60th vote.
“Why would we do that when we are not in the room?” Gregg asked.
Shelby and Dodd resumed their negotiations Wednesday night, but both faced increasing pressure from their respective parties to go only so far in compromising.
Earlier in the day, Dodd threatened to end the talks with Republicans if they continued to lead what he called a misinformation campaign based on Wall Street talking points.
“My patience is running out,” Dodd said. “I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort.”
Dodd lashed out on the Senate floor as Obama led the tense meeting at the White House with congressional leaders.
Some Democratic senators say the template should be the legislative strategy that led to passage earlier this year of a $15 billion jobs bill. Reid infuriated Republicans by scuttling a bipartisan compromise, betting that most wouldn’t have voted for it anyway. He pushed forward a narrowly tailored bill that at least a few Republicans decided they couldn’t vote against.
“We have to, on one hand, keep opening ourselves and keep offering our hands to Republicans,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
“But as a prudential matter we also have to be prepared, once again, to have that hand knocked away and to be able to go to a well-crafted Democratic bill — which will frankly be a stronger and better bill than if it is watered down with Republican amendments — and then let the chips fall where they may. I think that has to remain a backup strategy.”
With the public relations damage wrought by GOP talk of “death panels” fresh in Democratic memory, Team Obama launched a coordinated counteroffensive to rebut McConnell’s claim that the bank-financed “risk” fund included in the bill would pave the way for bottomless bank bailouts.
Geithner dismissed the idea that such a fund would lead to a bailout, saying, “Any risks the government takes are going to be borne by large financial institutions.”
Later, an administration official said Geithner has expressed willingness to negotiate with Republicans about the mechanics — but not the basic structure — of such a fund.
While Geithner and White House officials tried to project confidence that a strong, undiluted bill could be passed in weeks, they also cautioned that the toughest and most arcane work remained ahead of them.
Before leaving Wednesday’s briefing, Geithner delivered what he described as an “exhortation,” an unusual request for the press to guard the administration — and the American people — against GOP, lobbyists and banking interests.
“The stuff ahead of us now is derivatives, it’s ‘too big to fail,’ it’s complicated stuff — OK?” he said. “Make sure that you bring the same level of exposure and the spotlight on the choices ahead, because we — I think we all have an interest in resisting the efforts that are going to be made — and they’re going to come still, to weaken, to exempt, to carve people out of those basic protections.”
Eamon Javers and Manu Raju contributed to this report.
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN & GLENN THRUSH | 4/14/10 7:15 PM EDT
\
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (right) is betting he can deny President Obama even a single GOP vote on the financial bill.
For weeks, the White House strategy on financial regulatory reform remained an open question: Would President Barack Obama water down his bill just to get something passed — the way he did on health care?
A Palinesque “Hell no!” was the answer coming from the White House on Wednesday as the president, his senior aides and his allies on Capitol Hill issued an ultimatum to Republicans fighting Democrats’ plans to overhaul financial oversight.
“For the president, you have to be willing to accept a strong bill,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after Obama emerged from a contentious meeting with GOP congressional leaders.
“If the effort to get this close is simply to take steps to weaken that legislation, that’s not what the president is interested in.”
Democrats are so emboldened that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is prepared to bring the Banking Committee bill to the floor with no major concessions to Republicans and essentially dare them to vote against the measure, senior leadership aides said.
At a time when Wall Street is as reviled as government, Democrats are willing to gamble that at least one Republican — and maybe as many as a half-dozen — will break ranks. At the same time, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is betting he can hold his caucus together to deny Democrats even a single vote.
“It’s been two and a half years since this crisis started, more than a year since we first laid out a comprehensive set of reforms,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said during a rare appearance at the White House daily briefing alongside Gibbs.
“I think we know what we need to know. ... It’s just time to decide and time to move,” he added.
The hard-line, limited-compromise approach reflects a belief among Democrats, buoyed by recent polls, that they enjoy huge advantages on regulatory reform that eluded them on health care. Unless the GOP can succeed in painting the reform effort as a path to new bailouts — and Senate Republicans are trying to do just that — the politics of the issue seem to be almost entirely on the Democrats’ side.
But before they take on the minority, Senate Democrats are trying to smooth over internal conflicts. For weeks, White House officials have been quietly working with Senate leaders, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), on the list of amendments liberals plan to introduce when the measure comes to the floor.
The goal, according to several people close to the situation, is to green-light those amendments that force Republicans to take tough votes, while minimizing votes that divide the Democrats’ left and right wings.
In the meantime, McConnell has settled into his accustomed role as spoiler, trying to persuade the 41 members of the Republican conference to stick together in opposition to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s bill as it is currently written.
McConnell circulated a letter Wednesday that he hoped every Republican would sign, sending the message — as they did during the health care debate — that Republicans are united in opposition. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a potential swing vote, said he signed the letter, which asked Democrats to reopen negotiations.
“It appears the bipartisan talks have broken down,” McConnell said, after meeting for less than an hour with Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“The strings were kind of pulled by the Democratic leaders,” said McConnell, who added that Democrats “are trying to jam us” for political gain.
A seething Reid, squinting in the bright sunlight of the West Wing driveway, called McConnell’s claim that Democrats had abandoned talks a “figment of his imagination” and vowed to pass the overhaul quickly.
The standoff defined the parameters for what has turned into a sharply partisan debate as Obama pushes the Senate to deliver another major legislative achievement before Memorial Day. Democrats believe they can make Republicans fold, and Republicans expect to hold firm or risk losing any leverage they have left to change the bill.
“If we can get 41 votes, they’ll have to deal with us,” said Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee.
Three Republicans who have been targeted as potential swing votes — Brown, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and Maine Sen. Susan Collins — suggested they have no plans, at this point, to provide Democrats the crucial 60th vote.
“Why would we do that when we are not in the room?” Gregg asked.
Shelby and Dodd resumed their negotiations Wednesday night, but both faced increasing pressure from their respective parties to go only so far in compromising.
Earlier in the day, Dodd threatened to end the talks with Republicans if they continued to lead what he called a misinformation campaign based on Wall Street talking points.
“My patience is running out,” Dodd said. “I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort.”
Dodd lashed out on the Senate floor as Obama led the tense meeting at the White House with congressional leaders.
Some Democratic senators say the template should be the legislative strategy that led to passage earlier this year of a $15 billion jobs bill. Reid infuriated Republicans by scuttling a bipartisan compromise, betting that most wouldn’t have voted for it anyway. He pushed forward a narrowly tailored bill that at least a few Republicans decided they couldn’t vote against.
“We have to, on one hand, keep opening ourselves and keep offering our hands to Republicans,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
“But as a prudential matter we also have to be prepared, once again, to have that hand knocked away and to be able to go to a well-crafted Democratic bill — which will frankly be a stronger and better bill than if it is watered down with Republican amendments — and then let the chips fall where they may. I think that has to remain a backup strategy.”
With the public relations damage wrought by GOP talk of “death panels” fresh in Democratic memory, Team Obama launched a coordinated counteroffensive to rebut McConnell’s claim that the bank-financed “risk” fund included in the bill would pave the way for bottomless bank bailouts.
Geithner dismissed the idea that such a fund would lead to a bailout, saying, “Any risks the government takes are going to be borne by large financial institutions.”
Later, an administration official said Geithner has expressed willingness to negotiate with Republicans about the mechanics — but not the basic structure — of such a fund.
While Geithner and White House officials tried to project confidence that a strong, undiluted bill could be passed in weeks, they also cautioned that the toughest and most arcane work remained ahead of them.
Before leaving Wednesday’s briefing, Geithner delivered what he described as an “exhortation,” an unusual request for the press to guard the administration — and the American people — against GOP, lobbyists and banking interests.
“The stuff ahead of us now is derivatives, it’s ‘too big to fail,’ it’s complicated stuff — OK?” he said. “Make sure that you bring the same level of exposure and the spotlight on the choices ahead, because we — I think we all have an interest in resisting the efforts that are going to be made — and they’re going to come still, to weaken, to exempt, to carve people out of those basic protections.”
Eamon Javers and Manu Raju contributed to this report.
NASA Space Conference follows President Obama's Remarks at Kennedy Space Center
To me being a Floridian, the Space Center is of utmost important to the people of Florida for jobs, for visitors, for our future endeavors to travel outside our limited environment. Our Earth is over populated, over polluted, and very fragile. Being able to journey into our outer limits to go where no man has gone before, is who we are as humans, our desire to venture and learn and explore what we do not yet totally understand. To not continue would be so wrong, so stupid, and a dishonor to our fallen astronauts. It is up to us for our future generations to continue to reach for the extreme outer limits.
During a speech at the center, President Obama said, "As president, I believe space exploration is not a luxury, not an afterthought, an essential part of the quest."
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON SPACE EXPLORATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
John F. Kennedy Space Center
Merritt Island, Florida
And leading the world to space helped America achieve new heights of prosperity here on Earth, while demonstrating the power of a free and open society to harness the ingenuity of its people.
President Obama Visits Kennedy Space Center
President Barack Obama waves hello as he exits of Air Force One along with Senator Bill Nelson after landing at the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla. on Thursday, April 15, 2010. Obama visited Kennedy to deliver remarks on the bold new course the administration is charting to maintain U.S. leadership in human space flight.During a speech at the center, President Obama said, "As president, I believe space exploration is not a luxury, not an afterthought, an essential part of the quest."
BLASTOFF --
President Barack Obama on Space Exploration in the 21st Century
Office of the Press Secretary
April 15, 2010
ON SPACE EXPLORATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
John F. Kennedy Space Center
Merritt Island, Florida
2:55 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat. Thank you.
I want to thank Senator Bill Nelson and NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden for their extraordinary leadership. I want to recognize Dr. Buzz Aldrin as well, who’s in the house. (Applause.) Four decades ago, Buzz became a legend. But in the four decades since he’s also been one of America’s leading visionaries and authorities on human space flight.
Few people -- present company excluded -- can claim the expertise of Buzz and Bill and Charlie when it comes to space exploration. I have to say that few people are as singularly unimpressed by Air Force One as those three. (Laughter.) Sure, it’s comfortable, but it can’t even reach low Earth orbit. And that obviously is in striking contrast to the Falcon 9 rocket we just saw on the launch pad, which will be tested for the very first time in the coming weeks.
A couple of other acknowledgments I want to make. We’ve got Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas visiting us, a big supporter of the space program. (Applause.) My director, Office of Science and Technology Policy -- in other words my chief science advisor -- John Holdren is here. (Applause.) And most of all I want to acknowledge your congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, because every time I meet with her, including the flight down here, she reminds me of how important our NASA programs are and how important this facility is. And she is fighting for every single one of you and for her district and for the jobs in her district. And you should know that you’ve got a great champion in Congresswoman Kosmas. Please give her a big round of applause. (Applause.)
I also want to thank everybody for participating in today’s conference. And gathered here are scientists, engineers, business leaders, public servants, and a few more astronauts as well. Last but not least, I want to thank the men and women of NASA for welcoming me to the Kennedy Space Center, and for your contributions not only to America, but to the world.
Here at the Kennedy Space Center we are surrounded by monuments and milestones of those contributions. It was from here that NASA launched the missions of Mercury and Gemini and Apollo. It was from here that Space Shuttle Discovery, piloted by Charlie Bolden, carried the Hubble Telescope into orbit, allowing us to plumb the deepest recesses of our galaxy. And I should point out, by the way, that in my private office just off the Oval, I’ve got the picture of Jupiter from the Hubble. So thank you, Charlie, for helping to decorate my office. (Laughter.) It was from here that men and women, propelled by sheer nerve and talent, set about pushing the boundaries of humanity’s reach.
That’s the story of NASA. And it’s a story that started a little more than half a century ago, far from the Space Coast, in a remote and desolate region of what is now called Kazakhstan. Because it was from there that the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, which was little more than a few pieces of metal with a transmitter and a battery strapped to the top of a missile. But the world was stunned. Americans were dumbfounded. The Soviets, it was perceived, had taken the lead in a race for which we were not yet fully prepared.
But we caught up very quick. President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science and math education, from grade school to graduate school. In 1961, President Kennedy boldly declared before a joint session of Congress that the United States would send a man to the Moon and return him safely to the Earth within the decade. And as a nation, we set about meeting that goal, reaping rewards that have in the decades since touched every facet of our lives. NASA was at the forefront. Many gave their careers to the effort. And some have given far more.
In the years that have followed, the space race inspired a generation of scientists and innovators, including, I’m sure, many of you. It’s contributed to immeasurable technological advances that have improved our health and well-being, from satellite navigation to water purification, from aerospace manufacturing to medical imaging. Although, I have to say, during a meeting right before I came out on stage somebody said, you know, it’s more than just Tang -- and I had to point out I actually really like Tang. (Laughter.) I thought that was very cool.
During the STS-131 mission's first spacewalk, astronauts Rick Mastracchio and Clayton Anderson (out of frame) moved a new 1,700-pound ammonia tank from space shuttle Discovery's cargo bay to a temporary parking place on the station, retrieved an experiment from the Japanese Kibo Laboratory exposed facility and replaced a Rate Gyro Assembly on one of the truss segments.(Image Credit: NASA)
And leading the world to space helped America achieve new heights of prosperity here on Earth, while demonstrating the power of a free and open society to harness the ingenuity of its people.
And on a personal note, I have been part of that generation so inspired by the space program. 1961 was the year of my birth -- the year that Kennedy made his announcement. And one of my earliest memories is sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders, waving a flag as astronauts arrived in Hawaii. For me, the space program has always captured an essential part of what it means to be an American -- reaching for new heights, stretching beyond what previously did not seem possible. And so, as President, I believe that space exploration is not a luxury, it’s not an afterthought in America’s quest for a brighter future -- it is an essential part of that quest.
So today, I’d like to talk about the next chapter in this story. The challenges facing our space program are different, and our imperatives for this program are different, than in decades past. We’re no longer racing against an adversary. We’re no longer competing to achieve a singular goal like reaching the Moon. In fact, what was once a global competition has long since become a global collaboration. But while the measure of our achievements has changed a great deal over the past 50 years, what we do -- or fail to do -- in seeking new frontiers is no less consequential for our future in space and here on Earth.
So let me start by being extremely clear: I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future. (Applause.) Because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways that we can scarcely imagine. Because exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation -- sparking passions and launching careers. And because, ultimately, if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future and we are ceding that essential element of the American character.
I know there have been a number of questions raised about my administration’s plan for space exploration, especially in this part of Florida where so many rely on NASA as a source of income as well as a source of pride and community. And these questions come at a time of transition, as the space shuttle nears its scheduled retirement after almost 30 years of service. And understandably, this adds to the worries of folks concerned not only about their own futures but about the future of the space program to which they’ve devoted their lives.
But I also know that underlying these concerns is a deeper worry, one that precedes not only this plan but this administration. It stems from the sense that people in Washington -- driven sometimes less by vision than by politics -- have for years neglected NASA’s mission and undermined the work of the professionals who fulfill it. We’ve seen that in the NASA budget, which has risen and fallen with the political winds.
But we can also see it in other ways: in the reluctance of those who hold office to set clear, achievable objectives; to provide the resources to meet those objectives; and to justify not just these plans but the larger purpose of space exploration in the 21st century.
All that has to change. And with the strategy I’m outlining today, it will. We start by increasing NASA’s budget by $6 billion over the next five years, even -- (applause) -- I want people to understand the context of this. This is happening even as we have instituted a freeze on discretionary spending and sought to make cuts elsewhere in the budget.
So NASA, from the start, several months ago when I issued my budget, was one of the areas where we didn’t just maintain a freeze but we actually increased funding by $6 billion. By doing that we will ramp up robotic exploration of the solar system, including a probe of the Sun’s atmosphere; new scouting missions to Mars and other destinations; and an advanced telescope to follow Hubble, allowing us to peer deeper into the universe than ever before.
We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world -- science that will garner tangible benefits, helping us to protect our environment for future generations.
And we will extend the life of the International Space Station likely by more than five years, while actually using it for its intended purpose: conducting advanced research that can help improve the daily lives of people here on Earth, as well as testing and improving upon our capabilities in space. This includes technologies like more efficient life support systems that will help reduce the cost of future missions. And in order to reach the space station, we will work with a growing array of private companies competing to make getting to space easier and more affordable. (Applause.)
Now, I recognize that some have said it is unfeasible or unwise to work with the private sector in this way. I disagree. The truth is, NASA has always relied on private industry to help design and build the vehicles that carry astronauts to space, from the Mercury capsule that carried John Glenn into orbit nearly 50 years ago, to the space shuttle Discovery currently orbiting overhead. By buying the services of space transportation -- rather than the vehicles themselves -- we can continue to ensure rigorous safety standards are met. But we will also accelerate the pace of innovations as companies -- from young startups to established leaders -- compete to design and build and launch new means of carrying people and materials out of our atmosphere.
In addition, as part of this effort, we will build on the good work already done on the Orion crew capsule. I’ve directed Charlie Bolden to immediately begin developing a rescue vehicle using this technology, so we are not forced to rely on foreign providers if it becomes necessary to quickly bring our people home from the International Space Station. And this Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room. (Applause.)
Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket” -- a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space. In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models; we want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what we can do when we get there. And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it. (Applause.) And I want everybody to understand: That’s at least two years earlier than previously planned -- and that’s conservative, given that the previous program was behind schedule and over budget.
At the same time, after decades of neglect, we will increase investment -- right away -- in other groundbreaking technologies that will allow astronauts to reach space sooner and more often, to travel farther and faster for less cost, and to live and work in space for longer periods of time more safely. That means tackling major scientific and technological challenges. How do we shield astronauts from radiation on longer missions? How do we harness resources on distant worlds? How do we supply spacecraft with energy needed for these far-reaching journeys? These are questions that we can answer and will answer. And these are the questions whose answers no doubt will reap untold benefits right here on Earth.
So the point is what we’re looking for is not just to continue on the same path -- we want to leap into the future; we want major breakthroughs; a transformative agenda for NASA. (Applause.)
Now, yes, pursuing this new strategy will require that we revise the old strategy. In part, this is because the old strategy -- including the Constellation program -- was not fulfilling its promise in many ways. That’s not just my assessment; that’s also the assessment of a panel of respected non-partisan experts charged with looking at these issues closely. Now, despite this, some have had harsh words for the decisions we’ve made, including some individuals who I’ve got enormous respect and admiration for.
But what I hope is, is that everybody will take a look at what we are planning, consider the details of what we’ve laid out, and see the merits as I’ve described them. The bottom line is nobody is more committed to manned space flight, to human exploration of space than I am. (Applause.) But we’ve got to do it in a smart way, and we can’t just keep on doing the same old things that we’ve been doing and thinking that somehow is going to get us to where we want to go.
Some have said, for instance, that this plan gives up our leadership in space by failing to produce plans within NASA to reach low Earth orbit, instead of relying on companies and other countries. But we will actually reach space faster and more often under this new plan, in ways that will help us improve our technological capacity and lower our costs, which are both essential for the long-term sustainability of space flight. In fact, through our plan, we’ll be sending many more astronauts to space over the next decade. (Applause.)
There are also those who criticized our decision to end parts of Constellation as one that will hinder space exploration below [sic] low Earth orbit. But it’s precisely by investing in groundbreaking research and innovative companies that we will have the potential to rapidly transform our capabilities -- even as we build on the important work already completed, through projects like Orion, for future missions. And unlike the previous program, we are setting a course with specific and achievable milestones.
Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. (Applause.) And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. (Applause.) So we’ll start -- we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it. (Applause.)
But I want to repeat -- I want to repeat this: Critical to deep space exploration will be the development of breakthrough propulsion systems and other advanced technologies. So I’m challenging NASA to break through these barriers. And we’ll give you the resources to break through these barriers. And I know you will, with ingenuity and intensity, because that’s what you’ve always done. (Applause.)
Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. There’s a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do. So I believe it’s more important to ramp up our capabilities to reach -- and operate at -- a series of increasingly demanding targets, while advancing our technological capabilities with each step forward. And that’s what this strategy does. And that’s how we will ensure that our leadership in space is even stronger in this new century than it was in the last. (Applause.)
Finally, I want to say a few words about jobs. Suzanne pointed out to me that the last time I was here, I made a very clear promise that I would help in the transition into a new program to make sure that people who are already going through a tough time here in this region were helped. And despite some reports to the contrary, my plan will add more than 2,500 jobs along the Space Coast in the next two years compared to the plan under the previous administration. So I want to make that point. (Applause.)
We’re going to modernize the Kennedy Space Center, creating jobs as we upgrade launch facilities. And there’s potential for even more jobs as companies in Florida and across America compete to be part of a new space transportation industry. And some of those industry leaders are here today. This holds the promise of generating more than 10,000 jobs nationwide over the next few years. And many of these jobs will be created right here in Florida because this is an area primed to lead in this competition.
Now, it’s true -- there are Floridians who will see their work on the shuttle end as the program winds down. This is based on a decision that was made six years ago, not six months ago, but that doesn’t make it any less painful for families and communities affected as this decision becomes reality.
So I’m proposing -- in part because of strong lobbying by Bill and by Suzanne, as well as Charlie -- I’m proposing a $40 million initiative led by a high-level team from the White House, NASA, and other agencies to develop a plan for regional economic growth and job creation. And I expect this plan to reach my desk by August 15th. (Applause.) It’s an effort that will help prepare this already skilled workforce for new opportunities in the space industry and beyond.
So this is the next chapter that we can write together here at NASA. We will partner with industry. We will invest in cutting-edge research and technology. We will set far-reaching milestones and provide the resources to reach those milestones. And step by step, we will push the boundaries not only of where we can go but what we can do.
Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space -- we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth.
Now, I’ll close by saying this. I know that some Americans have asked a question that’s particularly apt on Tax Day: Why spend money on NASA at all? Why spend money solving problems in space when we don’t lack for problems to solve here on the ground? And obviously our country is still reeling from the worst economic turmoil we’ve known in generations. We have massive structural deficits that have to be closed in the coming years.
But you and I know this is a false choice. We have to fix our economy. We need to close our deficits. But for pennies on the dollar, the space program has fueled jobs and entire industries. For pennies on the dollar, the space program has improved our lives, advanced our society, strengthened our economy, and inspired generations of Americans. And I have no doubt that NASA can continue to fulfill this role. (Applause.) But that is why -- but I want to say clearly to those of you who work for NASA, but to the entire community that has been so supportive of the space program in this area: That is exactly why it’s so essential that we pursue a new course and that we revitalize NASA and its mission -- not just with dollars, but with clear aims and a larger purpose.
Now, little more than 40 years ago, astronauts descended the nine-rung ladder of the lunar module called Eagle, and allowed their feet to touch the dusty surface of the Earth’s only Moon. This was the culmination of a daring and perilous gambit -- of an endeavor that pushed the boundaries of our knowledge, of our technological prowess, of our very capacity as human beings to solve problems. It wasn’t just the greatest achievement in NASA’s history -- it was one of the greatest achievements in human history.
And the question for us now is whether that was the beginning of something or the end of something. I choose to believe it was only the beginning.
So thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 3:21 P.M. EDT
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
In Focus: Nuclear Security Summit, April 12-13
Updated March 17, 2010 By Sarah Diehl and Paula Humphrey
In April 2009 in Prague, President Obama pledged to address the international threat posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear materials by taking three steps: 1) reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear arsenals; 2) shoring up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; and 3) barring terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials. President Obama and his administration believe that nuclear terrorism is the "most immediate and extreme threat to global security." To address that threat, Obama has proposed that the international community make an effort to secure dangerous nuclear materials and to stop trade and transit of nuclear materials within four years. At the meeting between the Group of Eight (G8) leaders in L'Aquila, Italy, Obama announced plans to host a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC in spring 2010. The date for the summit is now set for April 12-13 at the Washington Convention Center.
"President Obama addresses the UN Security Council regarding the threat of nuclear weapons, September 24, 2009."
Source: www.whitehouse.gov
The possibility that terrorists will acquire nuclear materials is a real and growing threat, particularly as Al-Qaeda leaders have often voiced their interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon and as stockpiles of fissile materials continue to expand. Approximately 130 civilian nuclear reactors worldwide continue to utilize HEU.[2] The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) issued a report in 2009 estimating that current stockpiles of HEU total approximately 1,300—1,900 metric tons (or the equivalent of 60,000 nuclear weapons). Stocks of separated plutonium are estimated at 475—525 metric tons, or enough to make approximately 60,000 first generation nuclear bombs.[3] Although a bomb based on plutonium as a component is more difficult to construct than one with HEU, both fissile materials are of concern to international security.
Various governments planning to attend the April summit have organized conferences in advance of the event in order to coordinate a more successful international summit. Japan indicated its commitment to nuclear security measures by hosting a conference for Asian countries in January 2010. The following month, the Netherlands led a preparatory meeting that took place in The Hague in order to further focus the goals of the April summit. Specifically, delegates at this February meeting worked on the preliminary formulation of a Joint Statement that is expected to be the final result of the April proceedings. The Fissile Materials Working Group (FMWG) also plans to conduct a pre-summit conference with participants from various NGOs.
International efforts to improve nuclear security have long been underway. In particular, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, in cooperation with 17 different countries, has worked to remove "significant" HEU stocks that could be of proliferation concern. The upcoming summit is also expected to build on several on-going initiatives by international organizations and treaty members to control illicit trade in nuclear materials.
- The Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organization with 46 participating states, provides advisory guidelines for export of nuclear and nuclear-related materials;
- UN Security Council Resolution 1540, adopted in 2004, requires all UN member states to implement measures aimed at preventing non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons, their means of delivery, and related materials;
- The Proliferation Security Initiative, established in 2003 by President George W. Bush, involves a worldwide effort to combat the trafficking of WMD using existing national and international authorities. The initiative is targeted specifically toward preventing potential proliferating states and non-state actors from acquiring WMD;
- The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism receives support from 77 partners, including governments and international organizations, which strive to implement the agreed-upon Statement of Principles to further combat nuclear terrorism;
- The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, with 141 state parties, governs the protection of nuclear material for peaceful purposes while it is being transported internationally;
- The Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction calls for the funding and implementation of projects organized by the G8 nations to prevent terrorist acquisition of WMD or related materials;
- The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, initiated by Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, allocates funds for the decommissioning of former nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons facilities located in Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union;
- UN Security Council Resolution 1887 underscores the Security Council's concern about WMD proliferation and draws attention to specific goals that must be pursued to mitigate this threat, including: a renewed commitment to a world devoid of nuclear weapons, a stronger NPT, and improved security measures to prevent acquisition of WMD; and
- The draft Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), if and when it enters into force, would forbid nations from producing plutonium and HEU; however, the FMCT remains largely deadlocked in negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament.
Why Highly Enriched Uranium is a Threat
Updated September 2009The most difficult challenge for a terrorist organization seeking to build a nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device is obtaining fissile material, either plutonium or highly enriched uranium (HEU). HEU, uranium that has been processed to increase the proportion of the U-235 isotope to over 20%, is required for the construction of a gun-type nuclear device, the simplest type of nuclear weapon. The greater the proportion of U-235 (i.e. the higher the enrichment level), the less material is needed to cause a nuclear detonation. "Weapons-grade" uranium generally refers to uranium enriched to at least 90%, but material of far lower enrichment levels, found in both fresh and spent nuclear fuel, can be used to create a nuclear explosive device........click link above to read the rest of the article
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
President's Schedule: Tuesday, April 13
The key phrase here is "a bit." Although White House officials say Chinese President Hu Jintao has agreed to negotiate with the U.S. on tightening the screws on Iran, the question is: What kind of sanctions, exactly? The Chinese aren't saying - at least publicly - and there are no indications they'll go along with anything as tough as what the U.S. and allies like France are calling for.
Indeed, there have been signs that to get the Chinese and Russians - both of whom hold critical veto power in the U.N. Security Council - on board, that the Obama administration has been watering down its position, in hopes of eventually getting Beijing and Moscow on board. WWR recently asked presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs, for instance, if cutting off gasoline shipments to Iran was still on the table. Gibbs demurred (Iran is a giant oil producer but can't refine much of it, which is why it has to import much of its gasoline).
To underscore China's reluctance to back Obama on Iran, while Hu was here in Washington yesterday, a foreign ministry official back in Beijing said "Sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issues.”
Earlier, the White House counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, told reporters that both al- Qaeda and organized criminal networks remain focused on getting their hands on highly enriched uranium or plutonium - essential to making a nuclear weapon - and warned, ominously, that the clock was ticking.
"We cannot wait any longer," he said, "Before we lock down these stockpiles, because we don't want to have any type of materials that fall into the hands of terrorist groups because the results would be devastating."
*****
The Schedule
The final day of the nuclear security summit begins with the usual group photo with Heads of Delegation (also known as the "Class Photo"). President Obama will then deliver remarks at the first Plenary Session; after a working lunch there will be a second Plenary.
Heads of state who will sit down with the President today include Turkish Prime Minster Erdogan Argentina's President Fernandez and German Chancellor Merkel.
Obama will also squeeze in a news conference at 4:30 this afternoon.
EDT
9:20AM THE PRESIDENT participates in Heads of Delegation Group Photo
Washington Convention Center
9:30AM THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT attend Plenary Session I of the Nuclear Security Summit, THE PRESIDENT delivers opening remarks
12:00PM THE PRESIDENT attends Heads of Delegation working lunch
Washington Convention Center Dining Room
1:30PM THE PRESIDENT meets with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey
Washington Convention Center
2:00PM THE PRESIDENT attends Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit
Washington Convention Center
4:00PM THE PRESIDENT meets with President Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina
4:30PM THE PRESIDENT holds a press conference
Washington Convention Center
5:15PM THE PRESIDENT attends Heads of Delegation reception
Washington Convention Center Dining Room
6:00PM THE PRESIDENT holds bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel of Germany
Washington Convention Center
Sunday, April 11, 2010
President's Schedule: Monday, April 12
President Obama - the Nobel Peace Prize winner - wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, although he admits this probably won't happen in in his lifetime. But another goal is, he thinks, within reach: keeping nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Speaking with reporters Sunday, Obama said the nightmare scenario of a "loose nuke" falling into the hands of, say, al-Qaeda, is the #1 national security threat to the United States.
"We know that organizations like al Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure a nuclear weapon -- a weapon of mass destruction that they have no compunction at using. There (is) a lot of loose nuclear material around the world," he said, adding if a nuclear weapon ever went off in New York, London or elsewhere, "The ramifications economically, politically, and from a security perspective would be devastating."
But what about actual countries like North Korea, which has successfully tested a nuclear weapon, and Iran, which is believed to be working on one? They're not invited. But their behavior and nuclear programs are likely to be discussed in depth.
“We fear North Korea and Iran because their behavior as -- in the first case, North Korea being -- already having nuclear weapons, and Iran seeking them -- is that they are unpredictable,” said Clinton on ABC's “This Week”.
The summit officially begins today. But Sunday Obama walked across the street from the White House to Blair House, for a series of meetings with leaders from India, Pakistan (both have nuclear weapons of their own), South Africa, Kazakhstan (which have given up nuclear programs) and Nigeria.
Among the leaders Obama will meet one-on-one with today: King Abdullah II of Jordan, Prime Minister Mohammed Najib Abdul Razak of Malaysia, President Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine, President Serzh Sargsian of Armenia, and President Hu Jintao of China.
In the evening, the President will also welcome each head of delegation to the National Security Summit. Later, he'll host a working dinner for Heads of Delegation in the Washington Convention Center Dining Room.
The Schedule
EDT
10:15AM THE PRESIDENT arrives at the Convention Center to attend the Nuclear Security Summit
10:45AM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan
Washington Convention Center
11:45AM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Mohammed Najib Abdul Razak of Malaysia
Washington Convention Center
12:55PM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with President Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine
Washington Convention Center
1:30PM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with President Serzh Sargsian of Armenia
Washington Convention Center
2:30PM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with President Hu Jintao of China
Washington Convention Center
5:00PM THE PRESIDENT welcomes Heads of Delegation to the National Security Summit
Washington Convention Center
6:30PM THE PRESIDENT holds a working dinner with Heads of Delegation
Washington Convention Center Dining Room
Briefing Schedule
1:30 PM Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan Briefing
Washington Convention Center Press File
Monday, April 12, 2010
Obama's Coastal Drilling Plan
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
WHAT'S THE PAYOFF?: An expansion in offshore drilling leases, the Energy Information Administration has found, will have no effect on gas prices or dependence on foreign oil for decades. As then-senator Obama noted in 2005, "We could open up every square inch of America to drilling and we still wouldn't even make a dent in our oil dependency." Neither will it increase jobs, as oil companies aren't really interested in new drilling -- they are already sitting on existing leases instead of drilling them, in order to inflate their bottom lines by claiming the value of leased oil reserves as an asset. "Before oil companies drill off thousands of miles of pristine coastline, they should first use the thousands of drilling leases they already own," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Furthermore, a Center for American Progress study has found that money invested in offshore oil drilling would create three times as many jobs if the same amount of money were instead invested in renewables, but Big Oil refuses to make serious investments in clean energy. Obama's plan has dismayed environmentalists, youth activists, progressive commentators, and Democratic politicians who oppose expanded offshore drilling, especially without an established plan to halt global warming. "It would in my mind be more confidence building to have this as part of the final agreement rather than the opening discussion," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA).
PLAN SPLITS THE RIGHT: Most conservatives have thus far indicated that they are unwilling to compromise in exchange for the administration's lifting of offshore oil drilling bans. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) immediately "dismissed the president's plan as not going far enough in opening up U.S. waters for exploration," going so far as to accuse Obama of defying "the will of the American people." Chairman of the House Republican Conference and the American Energy Solutions Group Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) derided the plan as a "smokescreen" and a "feeble attempt to gain votes" for comprehensive energy legislation. David Koch's Americans for Prosperity Vice President Phil Kerpen said "the idea that this is a big concession in exchange for which Congress should jumpstart climate legislation is ridiculous." Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin mocked the plan as "Stall, Baby, Stall," saying it's "an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats' job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals." However, the "oil industry, business groups and some Republicans offered muted support for the proposal." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it a "step in the right direction," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) "welcome[s] the President's decision," and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agreed that it was a "good first step," but all said there should be fewer restrictions and more subsidies for drilling than the president proposed.
CALLING THE 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' BLUFF: Obama's drilling announcement yesterday is coupled with the finalization today of a "historic agreement to raise fuel economy standards in cars and trucks" -- the first major increase in decades and the first to recognize global warming pollution. These standards will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil starting in 2012, long before any new offshore drilling could even start producing oil. Obama's moves reflect his "comprehensive view of our energy policy," and his drilling announcement pleased senators like Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), who called it "good news and a positive step forward as we work to expand our nation's domestic energy production." Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long said they support an "all of the above" approach, language first promoted by Gingrich and House Republicans. Senators like Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Mark Udall (D-CO), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Barrasso (R-WY), and Richard Lugar (R-IN) claim to support an "all of the above" energy policy. The Obama administration is now delivering on that policy, with an "all of the above" plan that includes support for renewables, efficiency, nuclear power, offshore drilling, and advanced coal technology -- coupled with a price on carbon pollution that limits greenhouse gases and provides revenue for clean investment. President Obama has called the bluff of the all-of-the-abovers now, as he pushes for energy reform that cuts global warming pollution -- the only true "all of the above" approach. There's little reason to believe many Republicans are interested in working with the President, however, conservative strategist Dan Bartlett said yesterday. "Now, do I think that this measure here will help grease the path for a climate change bill and bring Republicans on board? No. Republicans in the Congress have made a calculation that cooperating with this administration at this time is not necessary for them to pick up seats." When Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Graham unveil all-of-the-above climate legislation this month, we will find out who wants "all of the above," or who just wants all of the pollution.
Profits Over Safety
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald
OVER 3,000 VIOLATIONS: According to Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) records, since 1995, Massey's Upper Big Branch-South Mine has been cited for 3,007 safety violations. Massey is contesting 353 violations, and 127 are delinquent. "Violations in 2009 were roughly double the amount from any previous year" and a violation involving mine foreman Terry Moore "was one of at least 50 'unwarrantable failure' violations assessed there in the past year, the most serious type of violation that MSHA can assess." In March 2010, 53 new safety citations were issued for Massey's mine, including violations of its mine ventilation plan. Federal regulators issued two citations against the Upper Big Branch Mine-South on Jan. 7 "because the intake system that was supposed to pull clean air inside was moving air in the wrong direction. Similar problems were also noted by the mine safety agency after a 2006 fire at a Massey mine in Logan County, W.Va., killed two miners. " The New York Times reports today that "federal officials said two safety citations were made against the mine's operator on the day of the explosion." "One of the citations issued Monday against the operator, the Massey Energy Company, was for failing to properly insulate and seal spliced electrical cables" while the other "was for failing to keep maps of above-ground escape routes current." Blankenship is dismissive of the safety violations. "Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process," he said in an interview with the Metronews radio network in West Virginia. "There are violations at every coal mine in America, and U.B.B. was a mine that had violations," he added, referring to Upper Big Branch Mine-South. In a 2003 Forbes profile, Blankenship said, "We don't pay much attention to the violation count." In addition to violations at the Upper Big Branch Mine, the Washington Independent's Mike Lillis notes that "the dozens of other active tunnel mines owned by" Massey "have run up thousands of safety violations this year alone."
A HISTORY OF DISASTER: Monday's tragic explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine-South was not the first environmental or safety disaster to occur at a Massey Energy-owned property. Massey is the parent of Martin County Coal, which was responsible for the "nation's largest man-made environmental disaster east of the Mississippi" until the 2008 Tennessee coal-ash spill. "In October 2000, a coal slurry impoundment broke through an underground mine shaft and spilled over 300 million gallons of black, toxic sludge into the headwaters of Coldwater Creek and Wolf Creek," in Martin County, Kentucky. In 2008, Massey's Aracoma Coal Co. agreed to "plead guilty to 10 criminal charges, including one felony, and pay $2.5 million in criminal fines" after two workers died in a 2006 fire at the Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine in Melville, West Virginia. Massey also paid $1.7 million in civil fines. The mine "had 25 violations of mandatory health and safety laws" before the fire on January 19, 2006, but Blankenship passed off the events that caused the deaths as "statistically insignificant." Days before fire broke out in the Aracoma mine, a federal mine inspector tried to close down that section of the mine, but "was told by his superior to back off and let them run coal, that there was too much demand for coal." Massey failed to notify authorities of the fire until two hours after the disaster. Three months before the Aracoma mine fire, Blankenship sent managers a memo saying, "If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal...you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills." A week later, however, Blankenship sent a follow-up memo, saying that safety is the first responsibility.
PAID-FOR POLITICAL PROTECTION: Blankenship is not just a coal baron, he's also a right-wing activist millionaire who sits on the boards of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association. He's "a highly active GOP fundraiser and bankroller who is known for his outspoken opposition to labor unions." The Center for Responsive Politics has calculated "that individuals and PACs connected to Massey Energy have contributed more than $300,000 to federal candidates in the past two decades, 91 percent of which went to Republicans." "Blankenship contributed the federal maximum of $30,400 last year to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and he has supported Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and GOP Senate candidates Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio," the Washington Post reports. After the Marin County Coal spill, then-U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, who oversaw the MSHA, "put on the brakes" on an agency investigation into the spill by placing a staffer to her husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in charge. In 2002, a Labor Department judge levied a $5,600 fine. "In September 2002, Massey's PAC gave $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee," which McConnell had previously chaired. Overall, McConnell has been one of the top recipients of Massey-related contributions, collecting $13,550 from Massey-connected contributors. Blankenship's closeness to prominent Republicans helped him land allies at the highest levels of the federal mine safety system during the Bush administration. Massey COO Stanley Suboleski was named a commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 2003 and was nominated in December 2007 to run the Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy. Suboleski is now back on the Massey board. After being rejected twice by the Senate, President Bush put one-time Massey executive Dick Stickler in charge of the MSHA by a recess appointment in October 2006. In the 1990s, Stickler oversaw Massey subsidiary Performance Coal, the operator of the deadly Upper Big Branch Mine, after managing Beth Energy mines, which "incurred injury rates double the national average." Bush named Stickler acting secretary when the recess appointment expired in January 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)