[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.
____________________