of pessimism among various people as to the likelihood that these problems can be satisfactorily resolved." He then suggested issuing a construction permit based on those issues being resolved before the operational license would be granted. Strauss then called for discussion. Murray turned to McMullough, who was also present, and asked him if anything had occurred since 6 June that changed his opinion. McMullough replied that nothing had changed. Murray then stated that he was opposed to issuing a construction license. Vance stated that they should go ahead with the construction license, but be sure to always use the term "conditional" when discussing it with the press, as he was concerned about the safety issues that were already known in public. He stated that "It may be some time before reasonable assurance can be obtained. If we were to daly the construction permit until then, it might delay a very important program. If we didn't think that the chances were very good that all these problems would be resolved, we would not issue the permit. We do think they are good." In the end, three commissioners voted to issue the permit, with Murray voting no. The permit was issued on 4 August 1956. Construction begins The official groundbreaking took place on the 8th as Strauss had stated. This led almost immediately to a lawsuit by the United Auto Workers (UAW), led by Walter Reuther. The McCullough report was made public in August, after the construction permit had been released. Reuther noted the concerns about reassembly after meltdown, stating "In everyday language, this means the reactor might convert itself into a small-scale atomic bomb." Cisler responded that the plant had only received a construction license, and that if safety concerns remained the operational license would not be granted. He then went on to claim the entire argument was politically motivated, telling the Detroit Free Press that "We are headed down the road to a socialist state" and that the people talking out against the design were "prepared to use any subterfuge to keep atomic power development in the hands of the government." He suggested the entire affair was simply a battle between those interested in keeping the designs in the public vs. private sector and that the arguments on safety were "hitting below the belt." This led to a letter from Michigan senator Patrick V. McNamara to Cisler, stating "I reject