Skip to main content

No Nomination Hearing Scheduled for NNSA Chief-Designate

No Nomination Hearing Scheduled for NNSA Chief-Designate
January 30, 2018
By Exchange Monitor

About two weeks before 2019 budget negotiations are set to compete for lawmakers’ attention on Capitol Hill, the Senate still has not taken a look at the Trump administration’s nominee to lead the National Nuclear Security Administration.

President Donald Trump nominated former Department of Energy and National Security Council staffer Lisa Gordon-Hagerty to the post on Dec. 19. About a month later, Frank Klotz resigned after almost four years as head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), leaving agency policy chief Steven Erhart at the helm on an acting basis.

The NNSA administrator, who also serves as undersecretary for nuclear security, is by far the highest-ranking Department of Energy (DOE) nominee the Senate has left to consider in the Trump administration. The agency’s other two undersecretary-level positions were filled in November, around four months after the administration sent their nominations to Capitol Hill.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has already held nomination hearings for other government posts this year, but had yet to schedule one for Gordon-Hagerty at deadline Monday for Weapons Complex Morning Briefing. No hearing was scheduled as of Monday, a committee spokesperson said.

Klotz was nominated in January 2014 and confirmed in April 2014. There have been four NNSA administrators since Congress created the DOE branch in 2000. Most were confirmed around two months after they were nominated.

https://www.exchangemonitor.com/no-nomination-hearing-scheduled-nnsa-admin-designate/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!