[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 28 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2014-S2016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE NOMINATION OF FEDERICO PENA TO SERVE AS U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of our Nation's 
taxpayers and ratepayers in seeking to reaffirm the promises made to 
them by the Federal Government well over a decade and a half ago. Given 
that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this morning reported 
out the nomination of Federico Pena to be the new Secretary of Energy 
and that full consideration by the Senate on his nomination is likely 
to occur soon, I find it both necessary and timely to reignite today 
the debate on our Nation's nuclear waste storage problem.
  Since 1982, our nuclear energy ratepayers have been required to pay 
over 12 billion of their hard-earned dollars to the Federal Government. 
And that was in exchange for the promise to transport and store 
commercially generated nuclear waste in a centralized Federal facility 
by January 31, 1998.
  Unfortunately, this obligation has never been met by the DOE, which 
has already spent over 6 billion of those ratepayer dollars, yet has 
little to show in exchange for that massive investment. Today, our 
ratepayers continue to pay into the Nuclear Waste

[[Page S2015]]

Fund, as well as for on-site storage at commercial nuclear facilities 
across the Nation, including the one at Prairie Island in southeastern 
Minnesota.
  So now ratepayers are being asked to pay twice for the storage of 
nuclear waste.
  Even as 41 States wait for the Department of Energy to fulfill its 
promise to begin accepting domestic nuclear waste, the Federal 
Government continues to accept, transport, and store spent nuclear fuel 
from Federal facilities and foreign research reactors. For national 
security reasons, the Federal Government is even helping to pay for an 
interim storage facility in Russia.
  Yet, Mr. President, despite the strides we are making toward interim 
storage of foreign and Federal waste, the situation has grown critical 
for our own nuclear utilities and ratepayers.
  For example, even though the Federal courts have ruled that the DOE 
will be liable if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by 
January 31, 1998--thereby putting taxpayers at risk for the Federal 
Government's inaction--the DOE has shrugged off this legal mandate, 
claiming that it will not be able to meet the deadline. Even worse, the 
DOE has yet to recommend the specific action it would take in order to 
accept any of our commercial nuclear waste.
  So again, it can accept foreign or Federal nuclear waste, transport 
and even pay for interim storage in Russia, but yet our Government says 
it cannot handle what it is under contract and obligation to do for our 
nuclear waste.
  I find this very troubling, particularly for my fellow Minnesotans, 
who stand to lose up to 30 percent of their energy resources if a 
solution is not found soon. Mr. President, the clock is ticking.
  In 1994, the Federal Government's failure to live up to its promise 
of accepting nuclear waste sparked a prolonged and controversial debate 
in the Minnesota State Legislature over whether to continue on-site 
storage at Prairie Island. While the legislature eventually voted to 
extend storage capacity until 2002, it would not have been forced to do 
so had the DOE met its legal obligation to begin accepting waste from 
Minnesota.
  At every turn, the DOE's response to this growing problem has been 
one of sheer arrogance and inaction. For example, when asked by me at 
an Energy Committee hearing how the DOE expected to resolve the 
situation facing Minnesota, DOE Undersecretary Thomas Grumbly argued 
that the problem was a State issue, in spite of the fact that the 
Federal government signed a contractual, legally binding agreement with 
utilities and the States to accept their waste by January 31, 1998.
  He said, take that back to the States. That is your problem, not 
theirs.
  In other words, now that the DOE has elected not to meet its 
responsibility, it has simply buried its head in the sand in a brazen 
attempt to avoid accountability. Instead of taking action, the Clinton-
Gore administration is making excuses--trying once again to take a 
national policy problem and turn it into a crassly political debate. 
Unfortunately, the losers of this cynical gamesmanship are the American 
people.
  Maybe that is why 46 State agencies and 36 utilities recently sued 
the Department of Energy to stop requiring future payments into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund and to escrow over $600 million in current payments. 
If the Clinton-Gore administration does not wake up and take action, 
this lawsuit will mark only the beginning of a costly legal process to 
force the Federal Government to own up to its responsibilities.
  Because obviously, if a solution is not reached now, taxpayers, 
consumers, and those who care about the environment will be left 
stranded. That is the reality--and some of those who once argued the 
loudest against resolving this issue have come to the very same 
conclusion.
  For example, last month, former Department of Energy Secretary Hazel 
O'Leary contradicted Vice President Gore's longstanding objection to 
meaningful action on this issue. Her comments on the need to move 
forward with a temporary nuclear waste storage site after the 
completion of a viability assessment at Yucca Mountain reflected the 
national will to resolve this issue.
  Although I am disappointed that Mrs. O'Leary's honest assessment came 
after her tenure as Secretary, I strongly believe the next Department 
of Energy Secretary must provide the commitment, the leadership 
necessary to immediately resolve this critical situation.
  Again, it is not a technical problem. It is not a problem of science. 
It is a problem of political will to be able to make that political 
decision within the administration to accept this responsibility and to 
provide the answers.
  With that in mind, I, like many of my colleagues on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, took the time to ask Secretary-designate 
Pena his views on resolving this issue. Unfortunately, he failed to 
give specific and definitive answers to our questions during his 
confirmation hearing.
  Because I do not believe the Senate should confirm Mr. Pena's 
nomination before we have received specific answers, I sent a letter 
asking Mr. Pena for a detailed response outlining the exact steps the 
department plans to take in order to meet the January 31, 1998, 
deadline.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from Mr. Pena that failed to 
articulate any specific solution. So in response, I again sent him 
another letter reiterating my question, and I hope to hear back from 
him today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our correspondence be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 4, 1997.
     Mr. Federico Pena,
     Secretary-designate, Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Pena: As the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee further deliberates on your nomination as Secretary 
     of the Department of Energy (DOE), I'm writing to solicit 
     your views on recent comments made concerning our nation's 
     failed commercial nuclear waste disposal program.
       As you know, the DOE has announced that it will be unable 
     to meet its legal deadline of January 31, 1998 to begin 
     accepting commercial nuclear waste despite a mandate by a 
     federal court and the collection of over $12 billion in 
     ratepayer's funds. As a result of this failure, the Court of 
     Appeals will decide the appropriate amount of liability owed 
     by the DOE to certain utilities, possibly putting taxpayers 
     at risk because of the Department's lack of measurable 
     action. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to 
     collect and transport foreign-generated spent fuel for 
     interim storage without any apparent technical or 
     environmental risks.
       In light of these activities, it was no surprise that 
     former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary recently contradicted the 
     Clinton Administration's longstanding objection to resolving 
     the centralized interim-storage impasse for our ratepayers 
     and, ultimately, our taxpayers. Her comments on the need to 
     move forward with a temporary waste storage site upon 
     completion of the viability assessment at Yucca Mountain 
     reflect the bipartisan, common-sense reforms contained in S. 
     104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Unfortunately, the 
     Clinton Administration has ignored this reality by failing to 
     become a constructive player in this process.
       Although I am disappointed that Mrs. O'Leary's comments 
     came after her tenure as Secretary, I applaud her courage in 
     expressing her views honestly and thoroughly. I strongly 
     believe that the next DOE Secretary must provide the 
     committed leadership necessary to resolve this critical 
     situation while in office. With this in mind, I want to know 
     your specific thoughts on Mrs. O'Leary's comments that the 
     DOE should move forward on a temporary nuclear waste storage 
     site next year at Yucca Mountain if a viability assessment is 
     completed at the permanent site. If you disagree with Mrs. 
     O'Leary, I want to know what specific alternatives you would 
     propose to meet the federal government's legal obligation to 
     accept nuclear waste by January 31, 1998.
       For too long, our nation's ratepayers and taxpayers have 
     been held hostage to what has become a political debate. They 
     deserve better and, more importantly, deserve an immediate 
     solution to this issue. For that reason, I expect a specific, 
     constructive response to my questions before the Senate votes 
     to confirm your nomination.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Rod Grams,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                                    March 5, 1997.
     Hon. Rod Grams,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grams: Thank you for your letter of March 4, 
     1997 concerning the Department of Energy's civilian nuclear 
     waste disposal program and the comments made recently by 
     former Secretary Hazel O'Leary. I have not spoken with 
     Secretary O'Leary about her remarks and, therefore, am not in 
     a position to comment on them.
       As I stated when I appeared before the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources, I am committed to working with the

[[Page S2016]]

     Committee and the Congress toward resolving the complex and 
     important issue of nuclear waste storage and disposal in a 
     timely and sensible manner, consistent with the President's 
     policy, which is based upon sound science and the protection 
     of public health, safety, and the environment.
       I am very cognizant of the Department's contractual 
     obligation with the utilities concerning the disposal of 
     commercial spent fuel, and, after confirmation, I also expect 
     to meet with representatives of the nuclear industry and 
     other stakeholders to discuss the Department's response to 
     the recent court decision and the consequences of the delay 
     in meeting that contractual obligation.
       As Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles emphasized in his February 
     27 letter to Chairman Murkowski, the Administration believes 
     that the Federal government's long-standing commitment to 
     permanent, geologic disposal should remain the basic goal of 
     high-level radioactive waste policy. Accordingly, the 
     Administration believes that a decision on the siting of an 
     interim storage facility should be based on objective, 
     science-based criteria and should be informed by the 
     viability assessment of Yucca Mountain, expected in 1998. 
     Therefore, as the President has stated, he would veto any 
     legislation that would designate an interim storage facility 
     at a specific site before the viability of the Yucca Mountain 
     site has been determined.
       In conclusion, I want to strongly emphasize again that I am 
     committed to working with you and other members of the 
     Committee and the Congress on these difficult issues.
           Sincerely,
     Federico Pena.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1997.
     Mr. Federico Pena,
     Secretary-designate, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Pena: I received your letter, dated today, in 
     response to my most recent questions on our nation's nuclear 
     waste policy. Although I appreciate the timeliness of your 
     response, I am still concerned about the absence of specific 
     proposals from you on how best to resolve this important 
     issue.
       In your letter, you wrote that the Clinton Administration 
     ``believes that a decision on the siting of a storage 
     facility should be based on objective, science-based criteria 
     and should be informed by the viability assessment of Yucca 
     Mountain, expected in 1998.'' Frankly, this response states 
     nothing more than the position you have taken in the past, 
     leaving questions about whether the viability study can be 
     completed in time for the DOE to realistically accept waste 
     by the legal deadline of January 31, 1998 and what can be 
     done to meet the deadline if the permanent site at Yucca 
     Mountain is not determined to be viable.
       I certainly hope you can understand my concerns, given that 
     you yourself have publicly admitted that following this track 
     would make it impossible for the DOE to meet the January 31, 
     1998 deadline.
       More importantly, you did not answer my central question 
     regarding what specific, constructive alternatives you would 
     propose in order for the DOE to begin accepting waste from 
     states by January 31, 1998, as outlined in statute and 
     ordered by the courts.
       With that in mind, I would again request a specific 
     response from you--prior to the Senate vote on your 
     confirmation--to the following question: given that the 
     current Administration position would result in the failure 
     of the DOE to accept waste from states by January 31, 1998, 
     what specific, constructive alternatives would you propose to 
     guarantee that the DOE will meet this legal, court-imposed 
     deadline?
       I look forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Rod Grams,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. GRAMS. Today, when the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
took up Mr. Pena's nomination, I voted ``present,'' as I had announced 
I would several weeks ago.
  As the author of legislation to eliminate the Department of Energy--
legislation prompted, in part, by the nuclear waste fiasco--I had 
decided that I could not in good conscience vote for Mr. Pena's 
nomination to head up a department that should not continue to exist.
  Yet, at the same time, I did not want to cast a vote that would be 
misinterpreted as a vote against Mr. Pena personally.
  Since then, I have grown increasingly troubled, however, for the 
reasons that I have outlined here today, by Mr. Pena's inability to 
provide specific answers about how he and the Clinton-Gore 
administration intend to resolve our Nation's nuclear waste storage 
problem.
  Again, he has to get these answers from the administration. And it is 
Clinton-Gore that have to make these decisions.
  We in the Senate have our own proposal, and that is our bill S. 104. 
That is the Murkowski-Craig-Grams bill, which won the support of 63 
Senators last year.
  As a Senator representing Minnesota ratepayers who already have paid 
over $250 million in exchange for no tangible benefit, representing 
taxpayers who may be held financially liable for the Federal 
Government's failure to act, and representing citizens concerned about 
protecting our environment, I believe that the Senate must not rush 
ahead in confirming Mr. Pena's nomination before we receive from him a 
specific and constructive response to our questions.
  Now, while I hold out hope that we will receive such answers from Mr. 
Pena in the immediate future, I am willing to work with my colleagues 
in ensuring that a final vote is not taken before a specific, 
constructive response is given. Accordingly, I would object to any 
unanimous-consent agreement to bring up Mr. Pena's nomination for a 
vote at this time.
  The Senate cannot simply allow itself to be lulled by vague promises 
to work together on this issue. Fifteen years of unfulfilled promises 
should have taught us that lesson.
  Again, with the January 31, 1998, deadline fast approaching, we have 
our own responsibility to the American people to ensure that the 
obligations of the Federal Government are satisfied. We owe them 
nothing less.

                          ____________________