[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 31 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2157-S2163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF FEDERICO PENA, OF COLORADO, TO BE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
go into executive session and proceed to the consideration of the 
nomination of Federico Pena to be Secretary of Energy, which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Federico Pena, 
of Colorado, to be Secretary of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes under the control 
of the Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, before I begin my statement dealing with 
the nomination today, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Colorado, 
Senator Campbell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I appreciate being 
able to speak on behalf of Mr. Pena for a couple of minutes.
  I have known Federico Pena personally and professionally for over 15 
years, Mr. President. I know him first as a friend and I know him as a 
professional with the highest integrity. He was that kind of a 
legislator when he was the minority leader of our State legislature. He 
was that kind of a mayor, as the mayor of our largest city of Denver. 
He was that kind of person when he was Secretary of the Department of 
Transportation.
  His resume reflects an unsurpassed commitment and dedication to 
public service. His achievements display remarkable leadership, vision, 
and hard work.
  Mr. Pena leaves an indelible mark on every project he undertakes. The 
now famous Denver International Airport was a product of his foresight 
and leadership. The Department of Transportation, where he served as a 
Secretary for 4 years, is now leaner and more effective than it once 
was--success in taming and trimming a vast bureaucracy that can only be 
accomplished with discipline, determination, and hard work that 
Federico Pena was willing to put in.
  Despite the many professional attributes Mr. Pena has, and the many 
dimensions of professionalism he brings to public service, perhaps none 
are so important in our work as his honesty and integrity. This is a 
quality the Federal Government cannot afford to turn down.
  Having known him for the many years that I have, I am convinced that 
Federico Pena will bring to the Department of Energy the same 
integrity, honesty, and leadership for which he is known. That is his 
indelible mark that he has left on our State and our U.S. Government.

[[Page S2158]]

  I simply urge my colleagues to support the nomination when it comes 
up this afternoon, and I thank the Senator for yielding these couple of 
minutes. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take a few minutes this morning to talk 
about today's pending nomination, and also some of the problems that 
are surrounding one of our most important issues, and that is the 
storage of this country's nuclear waste.
  Mr. President, as the full Senate takes up the nomination of Federico 
Pena to become the next Secretary of Energy, I rise today to discuss an 
issue of critical importance that has become necessarily linked to the 
Pena nomination again, that is our Nation's nuclear waste storage 
problem.
  I say the two are linked because it has been the failure of the very 
agency Mr. Pena has been appointed to lead--the U.S. Department of 
Energy--to carry out its legal obligations that has led to the nearly 
critical situation in which we currently find ourselves. It is this 
very failure on the part of the DOE which threatens utility ratepayers 
today and taxpayers in the future.
  For the Senate to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation, I 
believe that a brief summary of the history of this problem is in 
order.
  Since 1982, utility ratepayers have been required to pay the Federal 
Government nearly $13 billion of their hard-earned dollars in exchange 
for the promise that the Department of Energy would transport and store 
commercially generated nuclear waste in a centralized facility by 
January 31, 1998.
  However, with this deadline less than a year away and with over $6 
billion spent by the Department of Energy, there has been very little 
progress to date toward keeping this 15-year-old promise of 
establishing a centralized Federal storage facility.
  In fact, though there has been measurable progress at the Yucca 
Mountain, NV facility, a permanent repository will not be completed 
until well into the next century. Mr. President, the 80 nuclear 
wastesites on this chart graphically illustrate the extent of this 
growing problem.
  Clearly, if the DOE is to meet the January 31, 1998 deadline, it must 
begin accepting nuclear waste at an interim storage facility, yet, that 
has not happened. In fact, the DOE recently notified States and 
utilities that it would not accept their commercial nuclear waste 
despite the law and the Federal court's effort to enforce it. Worse 
yet, even in the face of significant taxpayer liability for such 
irresponsible behavior by the Federal Government, the DOE has failed to 
offer a single constructive proposal to even begin the process of 
fulfilling its responsibility to the American people.
  Despite those facts, utility ratepayers are still being required to 
pay for a mismanaged program. In fact, over $630 million from the 
ratepayers go into the nuclear waste fund each year--without any 
tangible benefits or results to show for them.
  Our Nation's utility consumers and their pocketbooks aren't just hit 
once, either. Because of the DOE's failure to act, ratepayers are 
currently being forced to pay their hard-earned dollars to store waste 
onsite at commercial utility plants--a burden that would not be 
necessary had the Energy Department lived up to its legal obligations.
  Take, for example, the situation facing ratepayers in my home State 
of Minnesota. Since 1982, Minnesota's nuclear energy consumers have 
paid over $250 million into the nuclear waste fund believing that the 
Federal Government would fulfill its obligation to transport nuclear 
waste out of the State of Minnesota. But as time went on and the DOE 
continued to ignore their responsibilities, utilities in Minnesota and 
around the country were forced to temporarily store their waste within 
the confines of their own facilities. When it became clear to many 
utilities that storage space was running out and the Department of 
Energy would not accept waste by the established deadline, then the 
utilities had to go to their States to ask for additional onsite 
storage or else be forced to shut down those operations.
  For example, ratepayers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Wisconsin were forced to pay for onsite storage in cooling pools at 
Prairie Island in southeastern Minnesota. In 1994, with storage space 
running out, the Minnesota Legislature--after a bruising battle--voted 
to allow for limited onsite dry cask storage until the year 2002.

  Mr. President, the cost associated with this onsite storage is simply 
staggering--ratepayers in our service area alone have paid over $50 
million for these costs and are estimated to pay another $111 million 
by the year 2015, in addition to the required payments to the Federal 
Government, the nuclear storage fund.
  To make matters worse, storage space will run out at Prairie Island 
in 2002, forcing the plant to close unless the State legislature once 
again makes up for the DOE's inaction. This will threaten over 30 
percent of Minnesota's overall energy resources and will likely lead to 
even higher costs for Minnesota's ratepayers. In fact, the Minnesota 
Department of Public Service estimates that the increase in costs could 
reach as high as 17 percent, forcing ratepayers to eventually pay three 
times: Once to the nuclear waste fund, again up to $100 million for 
onsite storage and yet again for increased energy costs.
  And Minnesota is not alone in facing this unacceptable situation. 
Thirty six other States across the Nation will be facing similar 
circumstances of either shutting down their energy-generating capacity 
or continuing to bail out the Federal Government and its failure to 
act.
  Ratepayers are not the only ones who face serious consequences 
because of inaction by the DOE; taxpayers are threatened as well.
  Last year, the Federal courts ruled that the DOE will be liable for 
damages if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 
1998. Under current law, these damages will not be paid for by anyone 
at the DOE, it will go to the American taxpayers--at an estimated cost 
of somewhere between $40 and $80 billion. Such a tremendous liability 
burden on taxpayers would make the public bailout of the savings and 
loan collapse seem small in comparison.
  What's worse is that while our States, utility ratepayers, and 
taxpayers are being unfairly punished by the Department of Energy's 
inaction, the Federal Government has been active in meeting the interim 
nuclear waste storage needs of foreign countries.
  Under the Atoms for Peace Program, the DOE's has resumed collecting 
nuclear spent fuel from a total of 41 countries. In fact, since last 
September, the DOE Savannah River facility had already received foreign 
spent fuel from Chile, Columbia, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and 
Canada.
  Ultimately, as I learned during a recent trip to the Savannah River 
site, up to 890 foreign research reactor cores will be accepted by the 
DOE over a 13 year period.
  In addition, our Government is actively helping other countries 
reduce their nuclear waste stockpiles. With the Department of Defense 
spending up to $400 million on designing and constructing an interim 
nuclear waste storage facility in Russia to help dismantle the cold war 
threat, the world will certainly be a safer place.
  Now, Mr. President, as a Senator who is concerned about our national 
security needs, I understand the rationale behind reducing our 
international nuclear dangers.
  But, what I, and many others cannot comprehend is how our Government 
has made it a priority to help foreign countries with their nuclear 
waste problems while simultaneously ignoring the concerns right here in 
our own country; not only that, but denying it has the responsibility 
and is going to court to stop it.
  It seems clear to me that while States, utilities, and ratepayers 
have kept their end of the bargain, the DOE has not done its part. And 
that sends the wrong message to the American people about trusting the 
promises of the Federal Government.
  Maybe that's why the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, 46 State agencies and 36 utilities have joined forces in 
a lawsuit to stop ratepayers' payments into the nuclear waste fund and 
to escrow $600 million that will soon go into the fund.
  For too long, our States, utilities, and ratepayers have acted in 
good faith, relying upon the Federal Government to live up to its 
obligations. Evidently, they have had enough of the

[[Page S2159]]

DOE's excuses for inaction and have proposed their own recourse.
  This issue has created strange bedfellows as well. In a recent 
interview, former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary agreed that action on 
interim site is needed as soon as possible.
  It's unfortunate that Secretary O'Leary waited until she was free 
from the administration to openly support interim storage, but I think 
her comments point not only to the need to resolve the interim storage 
impasse but also the political nature of this issue--again, I say the 
political nature of this issue. It is not science or technology, it's 
politics. She specifically stated that certain high-ranking officials 
connected with Vice President Al Gore see this issue in terms of 
politics, not policy.
  In addition, the former head of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management under the Clinton administration, Daniel Dreyfus, 
believes the DOE must move to meet the January 31, 1998, deadline.
  Key labor unions have even joined the fight to restore the DOE's 
promises.
  J.J. Barry, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, recently wrote me, saying

       I am calling on you and your colleagues to put partisan 
     politics aside for the good of our nation and America's 
     workers and their families. We must address this problem now 
     or else face serious economic and environmental consequences 
     later. Please support passage of S. 104.

  I am also pleased that we have received the support of the Building 
and Construction Trades Union in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters of labor 
support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAMS. Despite this widespread, bipartisan support for our 
efforts to resolve the storage problem, the White House, under the 
dictates of Vice President Al Gore, still has not offered an 
alternative to either our bipartisan legislation, which they oppose, or 
the failed status quo.
  The American people deserve leadership from the Clinton-Gore 
administration, not just the consequences of Presidential aspirations.
  If such leadership will not come from the Clinton-Gore 
administration, then it will come from Congress. Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, Senator Larry 
Craig and I crafted a bipartisan proposal, S. 104, identical to 
legislation supported last year by 63 Senators.
  We have put this proposal forward as a good faith effort to help 
resolve this situation for the sake of protecting our environment and 
the legitimate interests of our ratepayers and taxpayers.
  As I've stated, Congress has an obligation to protect the American 
public from the estimated $40 to $80 billion they face in liability 
expenses.
  Our bill will reform our current civilian nuclear waste program to 
avoid the squandering of billions of dollars of ratepayers' and 
taxpayers' money. It will make our environment safer, eliminate the 
current need for on-site storage at our Nation's nuclear plants, keep 
plants from shutting down prematurely due to lack of storage space, and 
keep energy prices stable.
  Our legislation also assures that transportation of nuclear waste 
will continue to be conducted in a safe manner. In fact, there have 
already been 2,400 shipments of high-level nuclear waste in our Nation, 
including numerous shipments of naval spent fuel. The safety record of 
these shipments speaks for itself.
  There are many other aspects of this bill which will help resolve the 
crisis facing the American public. Today, we on the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee will take a giant step forward in moving 
that bill closer to Senate passage.
  I applaud my distinguished colleague from Alaska, Chairman Murkowski, 
for his efforts in moving ahead with this much-needed, historic 
legislation.
  Keeping in mind the Clinton-Gore administration's stated opposition 
to our legislation, I took the opportunity to ask Secretary-designate 
Pena for any specific, constructive alternatives he would propose to 
resolve this issue and help the Federal Government meet its legal 
obligations.
  Mr. Pena's failure to offer specific responses during an Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee hearing prompted me to send a letter to him 
asking for a detailed response outlining the specific steps he would 
urge to meet the January 31, 1998, deadline.
  After exchanging a series of letters with Mr. Pena, I have become 
completely unsatisfied with the lack of specificity in his responses to 
my questions. While I appreciate Mr. Pena's stated willingness to work 
with us toward an eventual resolution of this issue and his belief that 
this is a federal problem worthy of a Federal solution, I believe the 
American people deserve more.
  They deserve specific answers from an administration that has buried 
its head in the sand and an independent leader at the helm of the DOE 
who will affect a change in policy.
  I have concluded that at this point in time, no one recommended by 
the Clinton-Gore administration to head the DOE will be allowed to 
lead.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to read a portion of 
Mr. Pena's letter dated March 6 that best illustrates my point.
  Mr. Pena writes:

       I cannot, however, outline for you specific steps for 
     meeting the January 31, 1998 date. The Department of Energy 
     has indicated to the court and in responses to the Congress 
     that there is no set of actions or activities that could be 
     taken under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to enable the 
     Department to begin receiving spent fuel at an interim 
     storage facility or a repository on that date.

  Frankly, Mr. President, as an elected representative of the 
ratepayers who have had over $6 billion thrown away by a department 
without a single answer to their problems and as an elected 
representative of the taxpayers who will ultimately assume tens of 
billions of dollars in liability if progress is not made, I find that 
answer insufficient and devoid of the leadership we so desperately need 
at the DOE.
  I believe that Mr. Pena is a decent and honorable man, but I also 
believe that he has not provided the needed answers or displayed the 
leadership necessary to help resolve this pressing national issue.
  Even though I shall do my best in working with him in the future, I 
cannot, in good conscience, today vote to confirm Mr. Pena to be our 
next Secretary of Energy.
         International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 1997.
     Hon. Rod Grams,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grams: I am writing on behalf of the 750,000 
     members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical 
     Workers (IBEW), to ask you to support S. 104, the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1997. Nuclear energy cleanly produces 20 
     percent of our nation's electricity, reduces our reliance on 
     foreign energy sources, and provides quality jobs for 
     thousands of Americans, including 15,000 of our members at 46 
     commercial nuclear plants.
       The IBEW is concerned that the government's program to 
     manage used nuclear fuel at these plants is woefully out of 
     touch with reality. I am sure that you are aware of the U.S. 
     Court of Appeals' ruling last July in favor of a lawsuit by 
     states and utilities, which stated in clear and unambiguous 
     terms that the federal government must keep its contractual 
     obligation to begin removing used fuel by 1998.
       The Department of Energy (DOE), however, says it will not 
     begin accepting used fuel for storage before 2010 at the 
     earliest. By that date, 80 nuclear stations will have rune 
     out of existing storage space. This could result in premature 
     plant closings, loss of jobs, and other devastating economic 
     consequences. By providing for central storage by the turn of 
     the century, S. 104 gives the DOE a framework for meeting its 
     legal obligation.
       The Congress has been debating the storage issues for years 
     without reaching a conclusion. It is time for a decision. 
     Yucca Mountain is the best possible choice that is available. 
     Unless Congress acts now to select Yucca Mountain, the wastes 
     will continue to be stored near communities around the 
     country, with all of the dire ramifications that such a 
     decision can pose.
       I am calling on you and your colleagues to put partisan 
     politics aside for the good of our nation and America's 
     workers and their families. We must address this problem now 
     or else face serious economic and environmental consequences 
     later. Please support passage of S. 104.
           Sincerely,
                                                       J.J. Barry,
                                          International President.

[[Page S2160]]

         American Federation of Labor, Building and Construction 
           Trades Department,
                                Washington, DC, February 10, 1997.
       Dear Senator: I write to urge you to vote for S. 104, the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. It will be considered by 
     your Committee this week. Unless the Congress votes to 
     approve this measure now, the terrible nuclear waste problem 
     that confronts communities across America will soon be 
     intolerable. Every town in the United States is vulnerable to 
     the possibility of sudden and uncontrollable disaster. This 
     issue must be given priority by the members of the Committee.
       In testimony last week, the Committee heard Undersecretary 
     of Energy, Thomas P. Grumbly, reveal the Department has more 
     than 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste 
     residing at facilities in the States of Washington, Idaho and 
     South Carolina. And, additional and significant nuclear waste 
     is being stored in varying degrees of safety by commercial 
     power companies around the nation.
       The Congress has been debating the storage issue for years 
     without reaching a conclusion. It is time for a decision. 
     Yucca Mountain is the best possible choice that is available. 
     Unless the Committee acts now to select Yucca Mountain, the 
     wastes will continue to be stored up in communities around 
     the country, with all of the dire ramifications that such a 
     decision can pose.
       The Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, 
     the 15 national and international unions it represents, urge 
     you to let our safe and well-trained members begin the hard 
     work that needs to be done to make Yucca Mountain the most 
     secure storage area for nuclear fuel that is available on the 
     face of the earth. If the Committee allows this opportunity 
     to pass, it is estimated that within the next decade, some 55 
     sites in 30 states will be filled with spent nuclear fuel 
     totaling some 11,000 metric tons of uranium.
       Chairman Murkowski expressed concern during the hearing 
     with the thought of letting spent fuel accumulate at reactor 
     sites. That concern is justified, and, possibly is 
     understated. Despite the reluctance of the Administration to 
     take action on this controversial issue, it is clear that the 
     time for debate is long past, and a courageous decision by 
     the Congress is necessary if the nation is to avert a serious 
     environmental disaster of its own making.
       Please vote S. 104 out of committee so that the full Senate 
     can debate this critical issue as soon as possible.
       With kind personal regards, I remain
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert A. Georgine,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
  I yield my remaining time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me wish the occupant of the chair, 
my good friend from Utah, a good morning. I extend my good wishes.
  Mr. President, I will proceed in accordance with the anticipated vote 
this afternoon on the Pena nomination, and I believe both the chairman 
of the Energy Committee, myself, and Senator Bumpers, the ranking 
member, have 10 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I heard the comments expressed by my good friend, the 
Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, relative to his concern and the 
concern of his State over the disposition of high-level nuclear waste 
that is in some 80 locations in 41 States throughout the country, and 
the inability of the current administration to address its 
responsibility and hence the responsibility of Congress to meet the 
contractual commitments made some years ago to take that nuclear waste 
next year, in 1998.
  The reality is that the ratepayers in this country have paid over 
that period of time some $12 billion which has gone into the general 
fund. And, as consequence, we are facing a reality that next year we 
are not going to be able to meet the obligation of taking that waste. 
So we can anticipate an opportunity for full employment for the lawyers 
that are associated with this issue because there is going to be a 
giant liability that is coming to the American taxpayer. It is 
estimated to be somewhere in the area of $40 billion to $80 billion. 
The current estimate is about $59 billion. But usually it goes up from 
there. This is the liability, or at least a portion of it, which the 
Federal Government will be subjected to as a consequence of its 
inability to perform on its contractual commitment. I do not take that 
lightly. As a consequence, as we address on the floor later on today 
the nomination of the Secretary of Energy, Federico Pena, I think this 
is a significant question.
  I rise today in support of that nomination. I also rise to advise my 
colleagues that the delay in considering the nomination has not been 
about the nominee's qualifications. The nominee is qualified. The 
committee has held hearings on the nomination. We have investigated 
matters brought to our attention. We found him to be qualified and 
reported the nomination favorably on a 19-to-0 vote with one Member 
voting ``present.'' But there has been an issue, and that issue has 
been whether the new Secretary is going to have the ability, the 
flexibility, and the authority to work with Congress to solve the 
looming nuclear waste storage problem. As I indicated earlier, this 
waste is stacking up in our towns and in our communities near our homes 
and schools at 80 locations in 41 States.
  Some have said, ``How important is nuclear energy?'' Well, nuclear 
energy is contributing about 22 percent of the total power generated in 
the United States today. People look at power. They take it for 
granted. They expect it to work. It is always there. It is almost an 
entitlement. But it has to come from somewhere. It has to come from 
investment and from transmissions. It has to come from some kind of 
energy source, and nuclear is an important contributor. Nearly a 
quarter of the energy produced in the United States. But the waste, as 
a consequence of these nuclear power plants, has been stacking up. A 
Federal court has said that the Government must take that waste by 
1998.
  As I have said before, Americans put $12 billion into the nuclear 
waste fund. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. The problem that 
is unique about this is that nobody wants it. Absolutely no State wants 
to have this waste. You can throw it up in the air. It has to come down 
somewhere. It will not stay up there. That is the basic problem. The 
States in question are running out of space. These are the States that 
have reactors, and the storage that they have is not permanent storage. 
It wasn't designed for long-term storage. It was designed for short-
term storage. That space is filling up. As a consequence, they may have 
to limit the construction of new storage capacities. States might not 
license for new storage capacity.
  Mr. President, I ask for another 4 minutes under the time remaining 
on the 30 minutes that was given to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The reality is that the final repository won't be ready until the 
year 2015. That is where we are; the permanent repository. We need 
that. But it will not be ready.
  We have a 50-50 chance of taking that waste. This poses an 
environmental and public safety challenge. I have indicated the risk to 
the taxpayers--currently $59 billion. Some electricity production may 
be shut down.
  Mr. President, we simply need the action now. However, we had a 
problem when the administration, in a communication by the Vice 
President, told a congressional leadership group this was not a matter 
that was up for consideration at that meeting. He inferred that we 
could leave the waste where it was until Yucca Mountain was built.
  After I heard about that statement, I postponed consideration of S. 
104 and the vote on Mr. Pena so we could begin a process of attempting 
to work with the administration to get this back on track. In a meeting 
with the White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, I asked him to 
empower the new Energy Secretary to work with us. I said the Senate 
cannot accept the Vice President's ``leave it there'' policy. I asked 
Mr. Bowles to send down a nominee who had flexibility. I have had 
several conversations with Mr. Pena, Mr. Bowles, and the White House, 
and judging from those conversations and a recent letter from Mr. 
Bowles, it seems that the administration has now decided to choose 
dialog over the Vice President's stonewalling, which is the only way I 
can put it. I am glad to see that the new Energy Secretary will now 
have a portfolio to work with the Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Bowles to me be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S2161]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  The White House,


                              Chief of Staff to the President,

                                                February 27, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: The Administration is committed to 
     resolving the complex and important issue of nuclear waste 
     storage in a timely and sensible manner, consistent with 
     sound science and the protection of public health, safety, 
     and the environment. The Federal government's long-standing 
     commitment to permanent, geologic disposal should remain the 
     basic goal of high-level radioactive waste management policy.
       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 determination of a 
     permanent geological repository at Yucca Mountain has been 
     determined.
       Following confirmation, Secretary Pena has the portfolio in 
     the Administration to work cooperatively with the Committee 
     and others in Congress on nuclear waste disposal issues 
     within the confines of the President's policy as stated 
     above. Secretary Pena will also be meeting with 
     representatives of the nuclear industry and other 
     stakeholders to discuss DOE's response to a recent court 
     decision on the Department's contractual obligations 
     regarding nuclear waste.
           Sincerely,
                                                Erskine B. Bowles.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In light of that, I am prepared to urge my colleagues 
to vote favorably on Mr. Pena's nomination this morning, and I look 
forward to working with him and members of my committee on the nuclear 
waste issue as well as other issues facing the Department of Energy.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I strongly support the President's 
nomination of Federico Pena as Secretary of Energy. He comes before the 
Senate today with 4 years of experience as Secretary of Transportation. 
This experience will stand him in good stead in his new position since 
the Department of Transportation has a number of features that are in 
common with the Department of Energy.
  Both agencies were formed by fusing organizational elements taken 
from various other departments and agencies.
  Both agencies currently have responsibility for a wide range of 
divergent issues and programs, and in recent years both agencies have 
had to square the desires of their traditional core constituencies with 
new environmental considerations and sensitivities.
  Only two of Secretary Pena's predecessors, James Schlesinger and 
James Watkins, were able to come before the Senate at the time of their 
nomination with comparable credentials as managers of large and complex 
Federal organizations. The Department of Transportation's budget is 
more than $30 billion, nearly twice the budget of the Department of 
Energy. It employs nearly 100,000 Federal employees compared to the 
20,000 employed at the Department of Energy.
  Secretary-designate Pena has faced some important challenges as 
Secretary of Transportation. He will face even more important 
challenges as Secretary of Energy.
  As the first order of business, he will need to develop a close 
working relationship with the Department of Defense. Cooperation with 
the Department of Defense is essential to the success of the Department 
of Energy in carrying out its national security missions. His track 
record at the Department of Transportation is very encouraging in this 
respect. Secretary Pena went out of his way while at the Department of 
Transportation to establish constructive partnerships with the 
Department of Defense on issues of mutual concern, such as shipbuilding 
technology. He also worked closely and successfully with DOD on 
commercialization of global positioning satellite systems.
  A second major challenge for the new Secretary is to preserve and 
enhance the research and development capabilities of the Department. 
Our nominee's track record at the Department of Transportation is also 
impressive in this area. Under Secretary Pena's leadership, the 
Department of Transportation posted a 60-percent increase in research 
and development spending, with substantial growth in nearly every part 
of the Department. Few Federal agencies over the last 4 years can make 
the same claim.
  Secretary Pena also reorganized and improved the coordination of the 
Department of Transportation research and development programs, 
establishing joint program offices cutting across internal departmental 
boundaries. I am looking forward to Secretary Pena's strong leadership 
in this area in the future.
  A final challenge facing Secretary-designate Pena will be to carry 
out the Department's missions in an environmentally responsible manner. 
The Department of Energy lost public trust and credibility in some 
previous years by pursuing its programs without sufficient regard to 
human and environmental consequences and to the need for public 
participation in decisionmaking. Recovering that public trust has been 
a slow and difficult process. It is essential to maintain momentum in 
this direction if the Department is to regain that public trust. 
Secretary Pena has a track record here that augers well.
  At the same time that he accelerated progress at the Department of 
Transportation on the construction of new highways and transportation 
projects, he also increased the speed of the Department of 
Transportation's response to natural disasters and he brought new 
emphasis to environmental considerations in transportation management 
planning.
  Mr. President, the Senate's action on this nomination is long 
overdue. It should have occurred a month ago. The committee's delay in 
bringing the nomination to the floor, as the chairman of the committee 
has said, had nothing to do with Secretary Pena's integrity or 
qualifications for the job. The delay resulted from Senators trying to 
hold his nomination hostage to attempt to persuade the President to 
change his position on nuclear waste legislation.
  The President has stated serious and well-founded concerns about the 
nuclear waste bill which is being marked up in the Energy Committee 
today and the effect that bill would have on the long-term solution to 
the nuclear waste problem. I share many of those concerns, as do other 
Senators. To his credit, the President has not been bullied into 
changing his mind on the substance of that bill, but he has agreed that 
Secretary Pena, once confirmed, can work with those of us in Congress 
to try to find a solution to this very difficult and complex problem.
  Ironically, we are going forward today in the Energy Committee to 
mark up the nuclear waste bill. This is at a time, of course, before 
Secretary Pena will be sworn into office and before he will have had a 
chance to work with us to resolve some of the differences which have 
arisen with regard to this legislation.
  I believe Secretary Pena will be a great Secretary of Energy. I hope 
we will confirm him today. I am looking forward to working with him on 
all the important issues--national security, energy policy, 
environmental protection and technological competitiveness, and I urge 
my colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Mr. Pena has an impressive set of 
challenges ahead of him. From our meetings as well as his committee 
hearing, I'm confident that he understands the responsibilities of this 
new assignment and that he is willing to make key changes in the 
Department to enable future success.
  Mr. Pena listed the key priorities for the Department, including the 
need to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile while 
reducing the global nuclear danger. He spoke to the importance of 
cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites and to finding a timely path 
for disposing of nuclear waste. He emphasized the importance of using 
and leveraging science and technology throughout the Department. Those 
are appropriate priorities.
  Responsibility for the Nation's nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons 
technologies was rightly prominent on

[[Page S2162]]

his list. Perhaps no other challenge requires as much of his personal 
attention. The safety and security of the Nation's nuclear arsenal must 
be assured. The Nation will place this responsibility squarely on his 
shoulders.
  We talked about the importance of avoiding over dependence on his 
staff and about moving forward with some key recommendations of the 
Galvin Commission to minimize micromanagement by the Department.
  He assured me that the nuclear weapons program will receive annual 
budget support above $4 billion for the foreseeable future. Below that 
level I doubt we can maintain the stockpile at the level of confidence, 
safety, and security that the nuclear weapon responsibilities demand. 
He assured me that the Department will continue to fully meet the 
requirements of the Department of Defense, including weapons production 
capabilities and a reliable tritium supply, and that the Science Based 
Stockpile Stewardship Program will remain a cornerstone of the nuclear 
weapons programs.
  He assured me that the Department will continue to pursue strong 
nonproliferation programs with the former Soviet Union, and seek 
opportunities for the Department to increase its contributions.
  He assured me that the Department will move forward with stronger 
coordination of policy and budgets, and that an independent review of 
the Department's overdependence on the NEPA process will be 
forthcoming. He assured me that he will explore rapid movement away 
from the Department's self-regulation toward outside regulation. And he 
assured me that the Department will support not only opening of WIPP 
this November, but also release of funds to construct the WIPP bypass 
system in New Mexico.
  Based on these assurances of appropriate support for the Department's 
programs of critical national and global importance, as well as those 
programs that directly impact on the State of New Mexico, I look 
forward to working with Secretary of Energy Pena on these challenges 
over the next 4 years.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending nomination 
of Mr. Federico Pena, who has been nominated to serve as Secretary of 
Energy.
  The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Mr. Pena's nomination 
last February to assess his views and positions on the Department of 
Energy's programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed 
Services Committee. We felt this hearing was necessary because Mr. Pena 
has no background in national security matters and, until very recently 
had no identifiable position on defense issues that Senators could use 
to assess his suitability to manage the Department's diverse national 
security activities.
  I, and other members of the Armed Services Committee, continue to 
have some concern about the Department's plans to certify the safety 
and reliability of nuclear warheads, restore tritium production in a 
timely manner, and maintain the capabilities of the Department's 
production plants. We also want to see more progress in environmental 
cleanup at DOE's former defense facilities. These are critical issues 
that the Secretary of Energy will have to address. I must say that we 
have not reached complete agreement with Mr. Pena on all of these 
issues. I intend to work very closely with Mr. Pena to resolve our 
differences once he is confirmed and I am hopeful that we can make 
progress on these difficult issues.
  Another area of concern that Mr. Pena will be required to address is 
how to move forward with a permanent repository for the Nation's 
growing stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. Mr. Pena must avoid playing 
politics with this issue. He should engage the Congress and work 
cooperatively to develop a credible solution to this mounting problem. 
I am hopeful that he will do so.
  There is an inconsistency in the Department's actions with regard to 
spent fuel. The Department has refused to accept U.S. commercial spent 
nuclear fuel, even after collecting billions of dollars from U.S. rate 
payers and being ordered to do so by the courts. However, the 
Department has paid to ship foreign research reactor fuel back to the 
United States--to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina--where it 
will likely be stored indefinitely at U.S. taxpayers' expense. Mr. 
President, this is an outrage. If the Department of Energy can pay to 
ship spent fuel from First World countries such as Germany and Sweden, 
why can't they find a way to accept spent nuclear fuel from Minnesota 
and California. There is no reason President Clinton should not support 
the legislation pending in the Senate to fix this problem. I strongly 
encourage the President to allow Mr. Pena to work with the Congress to 
move forward with a solution to this problem before more taxpayer's 
dollars are wasted.
  Mr. President, despite my remaining concerns, Mr. Pena impresses me 
as a highly capable manager and I intend to vote favorably on his 
nomination today. I also want to offer to sit down with Mr. Pena in the 
coming months to jointly address the issues I have raised. My hope is 
that he will accept this offer and that we will be able solve these 
problems for the benefit of the American people.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the recent 
decision of the Justice Department regarding a qui tam lawsuit filed 
under the false claims act against Energy Secretary-designate Federico 
Pena. Now, as a Senator I will not comment on the merits of an on-going 
court case. However, I do believe that it is appropriate to comment on 
what may be considered an unusual circumstance.
  As many of my colleagues may know, when someone files a qui tam 
lawsuit, the Department of Justice has to make a decision as to whether 
to intervene in the case or to decline to intervene in the case. Now, 
this time period is generally from 6 months to 1 year because qui tam 
lawsuits can be so complex.
  With regard to the Pena case, the Justice Department has had the 
lawsuit for about 1 month and they have already made a decision--to ask 
the court to dismiss Secretary Pena from the lawsuit. Now, I realize 
that Secretary Pena is a cabinet nominee and a former Cabinet Member 
and this case might warrant expedited consideration. But this seems 
like a rush to judgment. It seems unwise and it raises questions in my 
mind as to whether the Justice Department's decision in this case is 
due more to political pressure than to a genuine desire to protect 
taxpayer dollars.
  There are several troubling questions which remain regarding the role 
of the Department of Transportation, Secretary Pena and other top 
Transportation Department officials in seeking the reinstatement of a 
Government contract with the D.M.E. Corp. which the Coast Guard had 
terminated in March 1994. According to documents supplied to me by the 
Coast Guard, the D.M.E. Corp. was simply unable to satisfy the 
contract. Also, according to a memo prepared by the legal adviser to 
the Coast Guard, a financial audit revealed such serious irregularities 
that the FBI recommended that D.M.E. be prosecuted for fraud. Did 
Department of Transportation officials know of the FBI's recommendation 
when they pressured the Coast Guard to sign a memorandum of 
understanding committing the Coast Guard to reinstate the D.M.E. 
contract?
  As it happens, Ms. Lus Hopewell, who was Mr. Pena's top aid for the 
affirmative action programs for the Transportation Department had been 
the executive director of the Latin American Management Association 
immediately prior to working for the Transportation Department. Mr. 
Luis Mola who was the president of D.M.E.--the company whose contract 
was terminated--sat on the board of directors for the Latin American 
Management Association. Should Ms. Hopewell have recused herself? Did 
she disclose to her superiors that she had in effect worked for Mola 
only months before at her previous job as she was working to get D.M.E. 
reinstated?
  So far, as I understand it, Secretary Pena's defense has been that 
Coast Guard officials somehow got the mistaken impression that he had 
met with D.M.E. officials and was involved in reinstating the contract. 
So, in essence the revealing documents which I have received, which 
were created contemporaneously and by people with no apparent motive to 
lie, are mistaken. This explanation is almost identical to a an 
explanation supplied by Secretary

[[Page S2163]]

Pena when he was the mayor of Denver. According to a March 26, 1995 
article in the Denver Post newspaper, Alvarado Construction Co. 
received a $13 million contract to build an administration at the new 
Denver airport. Alvarado got the bid, however, even though its first 
bid was disqualified. In order to ensure that Alvarado got the bid, 
someone voided the first round of bidding for the contract and set up a 
new round of bidding. Alvarado got the contract on the second round. 
According to George Doughty, who was the Aviation Director at the time, 
Pena made the ultimate decision to void the first round of bidding. 
Secretary Pena said he wasn't involved and he didn't even know that 
Alvarado had received the bid. Finally, Alvarado was a strong financial 
backer of Secretary Pena when he was the mayor of Denver as well as a 
member of the Latin American Management Association. I ask unanimous 
consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Denver Post, Mar. 26, 1995]

                     Mr. Pena and a Pair of Probes

                            (By Gil Spencer)

       At the top of the Sunday, March 12, front page was this 
     Denver Post headline: ``Probe Zeros in on Pena.''
       At the top of the Friday front page just six days later, 
     was this Denver Post headline: ``Pena Inquiry Dropped.''
       With Commerce Secretary Ron Brown under investigation, with 
     former Agricultural Secretary Mike Espy under investigation, 
     with Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros under investigation, 
     and with the president himself under investigation for 
     financial dealings while he was governor of Arkansas, it is 
     worth more than a mere mention that Transportation Secretary 
     Federico Pena has been cleared by Attorney General Janet 
     Reno, who is not under investigation.
       I last talked to Federico Pena almost exactly three years 
     ago. The topic was his integrity, which, if pushed, he might 
     liken to a cross between the Hope Diamond and the Holy Grail. 
     He thinks very highly of his integrity, and not very highly 
     of anyone who might question it, which he said The Denver 
     Post did.
       Keeping Mr. Pena's opinion of his integrity in mind, 
     imagine his reaction when some blabber-mouths in Los Angeles 
     started making noises about Pena's former investment firm, 
     which he founded after he left the mayor's office and which 
     he sold in 1992, still bearing his name. The firm, Pena 
     Investment Advisors, was awarded a rather succulent contract 
     to manage a $5 million Los Angeles transit pension fund.
       Pena Investment Advisors got the transit contract less than 
     three weeks after its namesake became transportation 
     secretary. The timing of the contract award and the 
     investment firm's pedigree intrigued certain parties in Los 
     Angeles and inspired an intriguing comment by the manager of 
     the transit pension fund, one Melvin Marquardt.
       Marquardt, a candid soul, was quoted as saying the 
     investment firm would not have been retained if President 
     Clinton hadn't made Pena secretary of transportation.
       Enter Janet Reno. Investigation opens. Investigation 
     closes. Federico and his integrity ride on.
       That seems about right. There may possibly have been a 
     case. If so, it was hardly visible to the naked eye. In the 
     other words, the only thing on the table was timing: Pena 
     gets a big job and his old firm gets a big contract. If the 
     firm had been a hopeless loser, Ms. Reno's alarm would have 
     gone off. It would have had to. As it was, the firm seemed 
     qualified and, of course, richer. Life in big-time politics.
       Incidentially, in dismissing the contract allegation, Janet 
     Reno also closed down a Justice Department investigation into 
     whether the city--both Pena and Webb--was illegally diverting 
     revenue from Stapleton and using it for non-airport services.
       Pena's own department is continuing to investigate that 
     charge, for what it may or may not be worth. And because I 
     know you're absolutely on the edge of your chair, we'll keep 
     you advised.
       So Federico Pena is in the clear and has issued a statement 
     that he is pleased but not surprised, adding that his focus 
     has been and remains on serving the president and the 
     American people.
       In that spirit, he might turn back the calendar to May 
     1991. He was mayor Denver and the Alvarado Construction Co. 
     had been awarded a $13 million contract to build the 
     administration building at the new airport. That contract 
     drew political fire 10 months later, when it was learned that 
     Alvarado's first-round low bid had been defective and thus 
     was disqualified.
       Standard procedure would have had the contract awarded to 
     the second low bidder, which in this case appeared fully 
     qualified. Didn't happen. The city rejected all bids, saying 
     it did so in the city's best interest, and Alvarado wound up 
     with the contract.
       Alvarado got the contract on the second bounce. Mayor Pena 
     said he didn't even know Alvarado had the contract. Aviation 
     Director George Doughty said it was Pena's ultimate decision. 
     Pena said somebody must have had the impression that he made 
     a decision he didn't make.
       There's a fat lie in there somewhere.
       Pena said he didn't know Alvarado had a $13 million city 
     contract? Pena's world was alive with Alvarados--enjoying his 
     support before the city council, contributing to his '87 
     campaign and his post-mayorial investment firm (Linda 
     Alvarado became a director of that firm in 1993). He didn't 
     know?
       It's been three years since Pena damned The Denver Post for 
     questioning his integrity in connection with the Alvarado 
     contract--three years since the issue was buried whole. This 
     isn't the first time I have written about the issue and it 
     isn't the second. There may be a fourth. That contract has a 
     certain fragrance. Then there was the lying. But maybe we're 
     got it all wrong. Care to straighten us out, Mr. Secretary?

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would also like to point out that 
D.M.E. has received approximately $30 million in contracts with the 
Transportation Department. Roughly one-half of those contracts were 
entered into after the Coast Guard audit detected financial 
irregularities. Did the questionable practices of D.M.E. at least cause 
concern within the Transportation Department?
  Now these concerns shouldn't necessarily prevent Secretary Pena's 
nomination from going forward at this time, but there are serious 
questions about public integrity which require serious answers--not 
politically expedient ones.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have finally arrived 
at this point in the process to confirm Federico Pena as the new 
Secretary of Energy. In my view, it has already taken too long to bring 
this nomination to the floor of the Senate and I hope and expect that 
he will be confirmed overwhelmingly today.
  The delays in bringing this nomination to the floor have had nothing 
to do with Secretary Pena's qualifications for the job. His reputation 
and integrity are unblemished. Through his long and distinguished 
career in public service, Secretary Pena has established an outstanding 
reputation as a creative and able administrator, including his work as 
mayor of Denver, CO, and more recently as Secretary of Transportation.
  The questions that have been raised about his fitness for this job 
have all been answered through extensive questioning before the Senate 
Energy and Armed Services Committees. No one can argue credibly that 
Secretary Pena does not have the experience or leadership to head the 
Department of Energy.
  The delay in bringing this nomination to the floor has resulted from 
efforts to force the administration into accepting an ill-conceived 
plan to establish an interim nuclear waste depository in Nevada. This 
effort to link this confirmation to changes in administration policy 
has been unfair to the administration and to Secretary Pena, who has 
pledged to work with Congress to try and find a solution to this 
complex and daunting problem in a manner that is acceptable to all 
involved.
  The Energy Department needs a Secretary now to address the range of 
issues and challenges that lie before it, including nuclear waste 
disposal, electric utility deregulation, hazardous materials cleanup, 
and the broad questions about our Nation's future energy supply. 
Federico Pena will be an excellent Secretary of Energy and I fully 
expect that he will guide that Department through these many challenges 
in a decisive and competent manner.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the nomination of 
Federico Pena to be Secretary of Energy and to work cooperatively with 
him in the future to address responsibly the challenges that face our 
great Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________