[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9664-S9666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



        NOMINATION OF BILL RICHARDSON TO BE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to work with 
the current Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, on a 
number of occasions. I have met with him briefly twice this week. I 
find him to be a very impressive man.
  I, first, wish to commend him for his work at the United Nations, and 
particularly that chapter of his work which occurred during the course 
of the crisis in the gulf with Saddam Hussein in the early part of this 
year. I accompanied the Secretary of Defense on his trip to the gulf 
region and to Russia and to meet with his counterpart in Germany, and 
throughout that process then-Ambassador Richardson played a key role.
  I know for a fact Ambassador Richardson had a very significant 
participation, together with the President and the Secretaries of State 
and Defense, in negotiating with other nations to avoid the need for 
the use of force and to bring about a conclusion, while not entirely 
satisfactory to this Senator and to others, nevertheless, it was the 
best that could be achieved at that time. It was an extraordinary role 
that he played.
  I also observed, as did others, his tireless efforts throughout the 
world in fulfilling his responsibilities as Ambassador to the United 
Nations, and, indeed, he put a particular emphasis on Africa, where 
assistance is very gravely needed at this time.
  I think he comes eminently qualified to the position of Secretary of 
Energy. The Armed Services Committee, of which I am privileged to be a 
member, has oversight of approximately two-thirds of the budget of the 
Department. The key elements of that budget relate to stewardship of 
our nuclear weapons stockpile. We currently do no underground nuclear 
testing, and, therefore, there is a very significant challenge placed 
on the Secretary of Energy to make certain that the nuclear stockpile 
is maintained in a state of readiness to ensure its safety and 
reliability. The nuclear stockpile is an essential part of our arsenal 
of deterrence, and the certification of the stockpile's safety and 
reliability is a responsibility under the Secretary.
  That, together with the need to do cleanup at numerous Department of 
Energy weapons sites, places a great challenge on the Secretary. In my 
judgment, I believe unequivocally he has the ability to meet these 
challenges, and I join others in the Senate in supporting his 
nomination.
  Again, the term Secretary of Energy is aptly named for Bill 
Richardson because, as I think my good friend and colleague from New 
Mexico would say, he is a man of unlimited energy and is, indeed, the 
right man for that job.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on July 22, exactly one week after 
receiving the nomination of Ambassador Bill Richardson to be Secretary 
of Energy, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing 
on his nomination. Two days ago, exactly one week after the hearing, 
the Committee ordered his nomination reported. Now, two days later, the 
nomination is before this body for final passage at 2:00 p.m. I 
describe this to make it clear that the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, and its Chairman, have made every effort to go beyond simple 
good faith and work cooperatively with the White House and Department 
of Energy to fill this vital cabinet position.
  I believe that Ambassador Richardson is personally well-qualified to 
be Secretary of Energy. However, I, along with other members of the 
Energy Committee, have had serious reservations about this nomination. 
I have supported the demand of Senators Craig and Grams, and others, 
that this Administration show that it intends to live up to its 
responsibility to solve this Nation's nuclear waste problem.
  The Federal government is in breach of its contractual obligation to 
remove nuclear waste from more than 80 sites in 40 states by last 
January, making the American taxpayer liable for as much as $80 billion 
in damages. The Administration's failure to address this pressing 
environmental problem threatens to eliminate our single largest source 
of emissions-free power, and is already resulting in dirtier air.
  The Administration not only failed to propose a solution for this 
problem, they threatened to veto a Congressional solution that has 
overwhelming bipartisan support in both Houses. This issue was raised 
when the previous Secretary was nominated and confirmed, and we 
received assurances that he would work with us to address this problem. 
However, all we received from the Department of Energy was silence and 
a threat to veto Congress' proposed solution.
  All during this time, my request, echoed by many others on both sides 
of the aisle, to the Administration has been simple: live up to your 
obligation. The problem is real, and getting worse every day. If you do 
not like the solution Congress has proposed, you have an obligation to 
propose an alternative. I have made it clear that, while I can accept 
and support Ambassador Richardson as Secretary of Energy, I cannot 
accept any Secretary of Energy that would attempt to undertake all of 
this responsibility with no real authority. If the President does not 
trust, or expect, his nominee to undertake a resolution of one of the 
most important problems facing the Department of Energy, then he should 
not nominate him. If the Secretary of Energy cannot work with Congress 
to resolve such problems, then there is no point in having a Secretary 
of Energy.
  As I indicated earlier, despite these reservations, I, along with all 
of the members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources have 
gone out of our way to engender a spirit of cooperation with the 
Administration with respect to this nomination. In response, I am glad 
to say that the President has confirmed, via letter, the 
Administration's commitment to resolving the nuclear waste storage 
issue, and has assured me that Ambassador Richardson, if confirmed, 
will have the portfolio, and full authority, to address this problem. I 
ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 30, 1998.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to encourage your support 
     for an expeditious confirmation of Ambassador Bill Richardson 
     as Secretary of Energy. Ambassador Richardson brings a wealth 
     of experience to this position and I believe he will be able 
     to move the Department of Energy forward on its many critical 
     missions.
       I want to assure you that my Administration is committed to 
     resolving the nuclear waste storage issue. I have personal 
     confidence in Ambassador Richardson's ability to deal with 
     this complex matter in a competent, straight-forward 
     professional manner.
       It is extremely important that Ambassador Richardson be 
     confirmed so he can oversee

[[Page S9665]]

     the Department of Energy's viability assessment process for 
     the Yucca Mountain site. As you know, the viability 
     assessment will be completed by the end of this year. Once 
     that assessment is made, the Ambassador will have my complete 
     support in talking with Members of Congress on future issues 
     related to the Yucca Mountain site. Let me assure you that 
     Ambassador Richardson has the portfolio for addressing the 
     nuclear waste issue and has full authority to carry out his 
     responsibilities in this area.
       I believe it is in the Nation's interest to confirm 
     Ambassador Richardson as quickly as possible so that he can 
     bring his full attention to the viability assessment and the 
     future of Yucca Mountain as well as to the other important 
     missions of the Department of Energy.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The letter does make it clear that Congress should not 
expect to hear anything substantive from the new Secretary of Energy on 
this matter until the end of the year, well after the election. This 
concerns me, as a signal that the Administration plans to continue to 
hold nuclear waste hostage for political posturing, while the physical 
and economic health of American citizens is held in abeyance.
  However, the President also assures me of his faith in Ambassador 
Richardson's ability to deal with this complex matter in a competent, 
straight-forward professional manner. I have faith in his ability, as 
well, as long as he is given the authority to exercise it. As I now 
have a promise that he will have such authority, I will take this 
commitment in good faith, the spirit in which I have conducted this 
entire process, and will expect no less from President and Ambassador 
Richardson.
  Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
confirmation of Ambassador Richardson to be Secretary of Energy.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Senate today passed by unanimous 
consent the nomination of Bill Richardson to be the next Secretary of 
Energy. Mr. Richardson's nomination passed the Senate unanimously 
because he was an honorable Member of Congress, he was an honorable 
representative for our country at the United Nations, and he is an 
honorable man. Mr. Richardson has the capability to be among the best 
Secretaries of Energy to serve our nation.
  But if we had voted today on Mr. Richardson's nomination, I would 
have voted no. I would have done so not out of doubt for Mr. 
Richardson's capabilities, but because of the horrible record of the 
Clinton Administration in responding to my concerns and the concerns of 
many other Members of Congress with regard to nuclear waste storage.
  On April 8, 1998, I wrote a detailed letter to the President 
outlining my dissatisfaction with responses to questions I have posed 
to nominees for positions within the Department of Energy. In that 
letter I quoted those nominees and showed very clearly how they all 
want to do something, how they all want to work with Congress, and how 
they all recognize the problems at the DOE. Regrettably, not one of 
them has ever been allowed to tackle the issues for which they express 
so much concern before Congress. This Administration has yet to allow a 
nominee or professional staffer from the DOE to come to Congress and 
speak openly about nuclear waste.
  As I stated earlier, I wrote to the Administration with my concerns 
on April 8, and just received a response this morning. They knew I was 
going to be looking closely at the answers of Mr. Richardson and that I 
expected those answers to be detailed and substantive. Instead, they 
ignored my letter until the last minute and sent to me responses from 
Mr. Richardson that displayed the same lack of candor as all previous 
nominees. Let me read for the Senate a couple of examples.
  I provided Mr. Richardson with a detailed description of what I 
learned on a recent trip to France about its nuclear industry. I 
explained how France uses nuclear energy to meet over 80% of its 
electricity needs. I explained their use of reprocessing and MOX fuel 
and the level to which they are able to reduce the amount of nuclear 
waste they retain for final disposal. I then asked Mr. Richardson if he 
felt we should begin to look for ways to expand our use of nuclear 
energy. Mr. Richardson's response was notable in its brevity. He wrote:

       I agree that nuclear energy must be a viable option to 
     meeting future electricity demand in the United States.

  I find it hard to believe that Mr. Richardson, who used to represent 
the Congressional District in which Los Alamos National Laboratory 
rests, cannot be more specific in his views on the future of nuclear 
power in the United States. The answer provided above was written by a 
staffer at the DOE who sought to evade my question.
  I expanded on that question by asking Mr. Richardson how we expand 
our use of nuclear power? He wrote:

       The Department, in its FY 1999 Budget Request, recognized 
     the need to maintain a viable nuclear option for the future. 
     The Budget Request proposed new programs to work on the 
     technologies required to extend the licenses nuclear plants 
     and to undertake the research necessary to develop more 
     efficient, more reliable, and safer nuclear plants for the 
     future. I think these efforts are a good start at providing 
     the Nation with the option of safe and affordable nuclear 
     power in the future.

  Again, not a very definite statement on the future of nuclear power, 
but at least it was longer than the one sentence answer to the previous 
question. Sadly, Mr. Richardson's answer doesn't address any of the 
real issues in relation to the continuation and expansion of nuclear 
power. First, he never once mentioned nuclear waste storage in his 
answer. Without a storage solution, not only will we not build new 
plants, but our existing plants will begin to shut down prematurely. In 
fact, Minnesota is set to lose our Prairie Island facility in 2007 due 
to a lack of storage space for nuclear fuel. Minnesota will at that 
point lose 20% of its electricity generating capacity and will be 
forced to replace clean nuclear power with polluting fossil fuels at 
exactly the same time the Kyoto Protocol is set to take effect--and 
consumer costs will soar.
  That brings me to the next consideration unmentioned in Mr. 
Richardson's response: the role of nuclear power in our efforts to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is responsible for 90% 
of our greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the electricity 
industry since 1973. The countries of Europe and Japan are going to 
meet their requirements under the Kyoto Protocol using nuclear power. 
Mr. Richardson mentioned a new program to develop more reliable and 
safer nuclear power plants. Europe, Japan, and others are using our 
technology right now to build new plants--technology we continue to 
ignore.
  Those are but two of the important issues which must be addressed 
when we consider expanding or maintaining our use of nuclear power in 
the next century. I find it unreasonable that this Administration would 
send to me responses which so clearly lack the information directly 
asked for in the question.
  Mr. Richardson did, however, write some interesting things about 
nuclear power in his responses. Let me share with you a couple of those 
responses. They read:

       Nuclear power is a proven means of generating electricity. 
     When managed well, it is also a safe means of generating 
     electricity.
       It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel has been 
     safely transported in the United States in compliance with 
     the regulatory requirements set forth by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation.
       From the experience that France, England, and Japan have 
     reported, it appears that they have engaged in successful 
     shipping efforts. However, my understanding is that these 
     countries also have experienced some degree of difficulty and 
     criticism from the public.
       The widely publicized shipment last week of spent fuel from 
     California to Idaho is proof that transportation can be done 
     safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would be among 
     the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy.

  I asked Mr. Richardson to tell me who would pay the billions of 
dollars in damages some say the DOE will owe utilities as a result of 
DOE failure to remove spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. After 
writing about the DOE's beliefs on their level of liability he wrote: 
``I will give this issue priority attention once I am confirmed as 
Secretary of Energy.''
  I asked Mr. Richardson if he felt the taxpayers had been treated 
fairly. Again, after telling me about the history of the Department's 
actions to avoid their responsibilities, he wrote: ``I share your 
interest in resolving these issues and I will continue to pursue this 
once I am confirmed.''

[[Page S9666]]

  Now, Mr. President, lets look at who then nominee Federico Pena 
responded to my question regarding the responsibility of the DOE to 
begin removing spent nuclear fuel from my state. He said in testimony 
before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

       . . . we will work with the Committee to address these 
     issues within the context of the President's statement last 
     year. So we've got a very difficult issue. I am prepared to 
     address it. I will do that as best as I can, understanding 
     the complexities involved. But they are all very legitimate 
     questions and I look forward to working with you and others 
     to try to find a solution.

  Does that sound familiar? I suspect Secretary O'Leary had something 
equally vague to say about nuclear waste storage as well. Secretary 
Pena, I believe, said it best when he stated, ``I will do that as best 
as I can, understanding the complexities involved.'' Those 
complexities, Mr. President, are not that complex at all. Quite simply, 
the President of the United States, despite the will of 307 Members of 
the House of Representatives and 65 Senators, does not want to keep the 
DOE's promise and does not want to address this important issue for our 
nation. His absence in this debate is all the complexity we need 
identify.
  Mr. President, I want to be very clear that I am sincere in these 
complaints. My concern is for the ratepayers of my state and ratepayers 
across the country. They have poured billions of dollars into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund expecting the DOE to take this waste. They have paid 
countless more millions paying for on-site nuclear waste storage. 
Effective January 31, 1998, they are paying for both of these cost 
simultaneously even though no waste has been moved.
  Mr. President, when the DOE is forced to pay damages to utilities 
across the nation, the ratepayers and taxpayers will again pay for the 
follies authorized by the DOE. Some estimate the costs of damages to be 
as high as $80 to $100 billion or more. The ratepayers will also have 
to pay the price of building new gas or coal fired plants when nuclear 
plants must shut down. And, if the Administration gets its way, my 
constituents will pay again when the Kyoto Protocol takes effect in 
2008--exactly the same time Minnesota will be losing 20% of its 
electricity from clean nuclear power and replacing it with fossil 
fuels.
  Six years of rudderless leadership in the White House with regard to 
nuclear energy holds grave consequences for the citizens of my state. I 
cannot merely sit by now and tell my constituents I tried. I must take 
whatever action I can to raise this issue with this Administration and 
with this Congress.
  The Administration has admitted nuclear waste can be transported 
safely. They have admitted they neglected their responsibility. They 
have admitted nuclear power is a proven, safe means of generating 
electricity. And they have admitted there is a general consensus that 
centralized interim storage is scientifically and technically possible 
and can be done safely. If you add all of these points together and 
hold them up against the Administration's lack of action, you can only 
come to one conclusion: politics has indeed won out over policy and 
science.
  If the Senate would have voted on the Richardson nomination I would 
have voted no. I like Bill Richardson and I think he will do a fine job 
as Secretary of Energy--but my state and my constituents need someone 
to take substantive action at the DOE to begin removing nuclear fuel 
from my state. Regrettably, as long as Bill Clinton occupies 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, I do not believe it will happen. I do not believe 
Bill Richardson will have the opportunity to do what is needed to 
resolve these problems. I know he will have to advocate the policies of 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore. And in my opinion, that is 
the problem. This Administration has made this a political issue at the 
expense of the electricity needs of the country. Until this 
Administration wants to deal with policy and not politics, I will not 
support its continued lack of action.

                          ____________________