[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 7 (Monday, January 31, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S628-S633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 7, the nomination
of Samuel Bodman to be Secretary of Energy, that the nomination be
confirmed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that
the Senate then resume legislative session. Finally, I ask that any
statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:
department of energy
Samuel W. Bodman, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of
Energy.
[[Page S629]]
nomination of dr. samuel bodman
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to share some brief comments
concerning the nomination of a fellow Illinoisan, Dr. Samuel Bodman,
for Secretary of the United States Department of Energy.
Last week I had the opportunity to meet Secretary-designee Bodman. I
learned he was born in Wheaton, IL, his mother was raised in Coffeen
and his father grew up in Bement, IL, where main street is actually
named Bodman Street.
I expressed to Secretary-designate Bodman a few of my concerns about
national energy policy. I stressed my belief that one of our most
urgent national energy priorities is increasing fuel efficiency
standards. This is a critical issue and one that has been visibly
absent from the administration's national energy policy. How can we
claim to be serious about reducing America's dangerous dependence on
foreign oil if we don't get serious about encouraging greater fuel
efficiency?
We hear the same excuses all the time for failing to act: Cars will
be unsafe. The technology isn't available. The truth is, the technology
is available and the higher fuel efficient cars are on the road. The
majority of them, however, are Japanese.
I'm lucky. Fortunately, after 6 months of waiting, we recently
purchased a Ford Escape hybrid. This car achieves anywhere from 31 to
36 miles per gallon of gasoline. Clearly, the technology is there.
What is needed, I stress again, is comprehensive energy policy that
places greater emphasis on conserving energy and promoting fuel
efficiency rather than simply drilling more oil wells in ever more
fragile wilderness areas.
I also expressed to Dr. Bodman my strong support for the energy
department's research and development programs, for advancing energy
technology, and for helping to maintain our Nation's leadership in
advanced science.
One project I support strongly is the DOE Science Advisory
Committee's highest priority recommendation, the construction of a rare
isotope accelerator. This project is critically important in
maintaining our Nation's position as a leader in nuclear research.
The Department of Energy is in the process now of finalizing its
decision on where to place the rare isotope accelerator. Among the
contenders is Argonne National Laboratory at the University of Chicago.
I am working closely with my colleagues, Speaker Dennis Hastert and
Congresswoman Judy Biggert to try to bring the rare isotope accelerator
to Argonne.
First, Argonne has already built a major isotope accelerator and is
the only facility in America with the experience and management already
in place to get this project up and running.
Second, Argonne has the necessary infrastructure to support the
project. Argonne's existing infrastructure would save the Federal
Government approximately $100 million in project costs. At a time of
tight budgets and spending constraints, this alone is an appealing
benefit.
Finally, Argonne is located just 25 miles southwest of the Chicago
Loop, close to both Midway and O'Hare International Airport, making it
readily accessible to researchers around the world.
The rare isotope accelerator will allow researchers to delve into the
origin of elements that make up the world. The research at this
facility will provide us the opportunity to advance the application of
nuclear medicine and enhance our understanding of environmental science
and the biology of the Earth. This project would be an extraordinary
asset to Illinois. With an initial investment of $1 billion in
Illinois's economy, the rare isotope accelerator would bring 1,750
permanent jobs and 16,000 temporary construction jobs to Illinois. It
would make Illinois a hub for scientific research, discovery and
collaboration.
I encourage Secretary-designee Bodman to give a good look to
Argonne's application. I believe strongly that he will find Argonne's
expertise, success and cost-saving efforts make it the best site for
this facility.
Finally, I appreciated the opportunity to discuss with Dr. Bodman my
interest and strong support for the Energy Department's FutureGen
project.
In the 1970's there were 71 operating coal mines in Illinois. Today,
there are only 21 active mines. Over the past 30 years the economy in
Southern Illinois has slowly collapsed, leaving thousands of people
unemployed.
The FutureGen project will advance energy production into the future
by creating an integrated sequestration and hydrogen production zero-
emission fossil fuel plant.
Southern Illinois is the perfect location for such a facility.
Illinois contains more than 25 percent of the Nation's total
recoverable bituminous coal reserves, and it also contains deep saline
aquifers, available for the sequestration of carbon dioxide. While
creating a use for the high sulfur content coal in the State, the
FutureGen plant would help revitalize the Southern Illinois coal
industry.
I am pleased to support Dr. Bodman to be America's next Energy
Secretary and I look forward to working with him and the Illinois
delegation to bring this project to our State and to decrease America's
dependence on foreign oil.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the
nomination of Dr. Samuel Bodman to be the next Secretary of Energy. I
understand that Dr. Bodman is likely to be confirmed. Though I will
support his nomination, I want to review my understanding of Dr.
Bodman's commitment to several issues that are critical to our Nation
and specifically to my State of Washington, so that he can begin his
tenure with a clear understanding of this Senator's expectations.
During his confirmation process, I had the opportunity to meet with
Dr. Bodman personally and to engage him and seek his views on the
policies of the Department of Energy. Among the issues I raised were
several of critical importance to the State of Washington, such as
maintaining the Federal Government's commitment to clean up the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, considering carefully any changes to Federal
policies regarding the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, and
advancing the Federal role in research and development at institutions
such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. On some of these
issues, Dr. Bodman stated he needs time to review them early in his
tenure at DOE, and has committed to me to do so. In other cases, he was
able to make a more explicit commitment on the issue's merits, such as
the enforcement of the Triparty Agreement on cleanup of the Hanford
Nuclear reservation.
From our interactions, Dr. Bodman has begun to develop an
appreciation for just how large DOE's ``footprint'' is in the State of
Washington and how much is at stake for our economy and environment
when it comes to the many policy decisions he will make when confirmed
as Secretary of Energy. It is a job that comes with a considerable
number of challenges--but also incredible opportunity. Putting in place
a real, forward-looking energy policy for the 21st century is not only
essential for this Nation's economic security, it is my belief that it
will fuel the next wave of innovation. It is critical for this country
to take the technology lead in the energy sector. Otherwise, we will
find ourselves in 10 to 20 years in exactly the same position we do
today as it relates to our dependence on foreign oil--we will be
importing the next generation of energy technology. Instead, we need to
seize the opportunity before us and recognize that it is the key to
securing our Nation's long-term energy independence.
As I have expressed to Dr. Bodman, the Western electricity market
meltdown of 2000-2001 has had a profound impact on my State's economy,
the pocketbooks and economic well-being of my constituents. Moreover,
the Western crisis has brought to the forefront a number of very
important policy questions about the kind of behavior that will be
tolerated in our Nation's electricity markets, as the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, FERC has continued to pursue its
``restructuring'' agenda.
As the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Bodman will have a very important,
leading role--defined in the 1977 Department of Energy Organization
Act--in guiding overall electric regulatory policy.
[[Page S630]]
The incoming DOE Secretary will need to provide strong leadership and
condemn the types of schemes used by Enron traders--manipulation
tactics with infamous nicknames like Get Shorty, Death Star, and
Ricochet.
These are more than just ``theoretical'' concerns for me and my
constituents. Not only are Western ratepayers trying to recover some
small fraction of the money they lost to Enron as a result of its
unscrupulous trading practices, they are trying to avoid paying even
more. Right now, Enron is claiming utilities in Washington State and
Nevada alone owe about a half billion dollars more--for power Enron
never even delivered. You can understand just how outrageous this seems
to my constituents, who are already struggling to pay their power
bills.
I am pleased that Dr. Bodman provided assurances that market
manipulation cannot be tolerated and pledged to enforce applicable
Federal statutes. We need to send a strong and unanimous message that
these practices will not be tolerated in our Nation's electricity
markets.
Unfortunately, justice delayed is justice denied for Enron's victims.
It has literally been years now, in which the ratepayers of my State--
who have already suffered enough--have been waiting for the other shoe
to drop. I look forward to working with Dr. Bodman in righting past
wrongs done to consumers--including those in the State of Washington--
and putting in place safeguards to prevent future victimization of
electric ratepayers.
As I referenced earlier in my remarks, I have emphasized to Dr.
Bodman the importance of Hanford cleanup to the residents of Washington
and the Pacific Northwest as a whole. It has been my experience that
achieving our mutual goal of an effective and efficient Hanford cleanup
suffers when relationships between the States and DOE, the
congressional delegations and other stakeholders are damaged by the bad
faith actions of one of the parties. Again, I applaud Dr. Bodman for
publicly committing that the continued cleanup at Hanford will be done
under the framework of the Triparty Agreement, TPA.
I have also asked Dr. Bodman, and he has agreed, to consult with me
and other members of the Washington congressional delegation on any
administration or legislative proposals regarding tank waste stored at
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. We will not tolerate the same
situation that happened last year--when DOE-authored language related
to the reclassification of high-level nuclear waste was inserted into
the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill. This negotiation that
was done behind closed doors, in a committee that is not the rightful
forum for debate on the issue of high-level nuclear waste and how it
should be treated and disposed of. This legislative end run was viewed
by me and the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, as well as
the State of Washington and many of our constituents, as an ill-
considered attempt to take short cuts at Hanford. I hope Dr. Bodman's
commitment to consult with me will further his understanding of this
issue and ultimately lead to an agreement that these bad faith
maneuvers will not be continued by the Department of Energy under his
leadership.
Washington is blessed with an incredible system of clean, renewable,
and cost-effective hydropower. The pitfalls of being 80-percent
dependent on one particular source for electric generation--subject to
the whims of Mother Nature--have been made all too apparent in the past
few years.
I look forward to ensuring that the Department of Energy and the
policies that the incoming Secretary supports will ensure economic
stability and growth for Washington residents specifically and
throughout the Pacific Northwest. In order to meet these goals, the
Department of Energy should be engaged in four broad activities. They
include providing some regulatory certainty to the electric industry,
at the same time we set some forward-thinking, yet achievable, goals
for diversifying our energy sources; rationalizing our energy tax
policy, and, in tight budgetary times, target it to support emerging
technologies; we need to promote a vigorous research and development
effort; and finally we need to make sure we are investing in the
workforce, the human infrastructure, which is critical if we are going
to lead in the global energy economy.
I believe that we are using unique Federal resources towards
contributing greatly to addressing some of these important challenges.
Among its diverse missions within the Department of Energy, the Pacific
Northwest National Lab has been a national leader in the development of
``smart-grid'' R&D. This ``smart-grid'' technology, due to be deployed
throughout the Pacific Northwest, will allow a reliable response to
energy demand and the propagation of a more distributive energy
infrastructure. These types of programs allow us to make our energy
grid more reliable, help train and grow our energy workforce for the
21st century, and sustain and grow our economy. These programs should
serve as examples of progressive investment of Federal resources
yielding incredible results. I look forward to working with Dr. Bodman
to ensuring the future growth of these programs.
Dr. Bodman also will be responsible for furthering the investments
that incentivize the long-term production of alternative energy
resources, including wind and biomass. I know that many of these have
strong bipartisan support in the Congress and can play a critical role
in sustainable economic development, especially in rural parts of our
Nation, like most of the Eastern part of Washington State. Again, it is
investments like these that can ensure a more reliable and distributive
grid that will ultimately lessen our long term reliance on fossil
fuels.
Finally, I look forward to educating Dr. Bodman on the importance of
the long-term stability of the Bonneville Power Administration. The
incoming Secretary should note that decisions about the future
operation of the BPA system, including any decision to join a regional
transmission organization, or RTO, should be left to stakeholders in
the Pacific Northwest.
It is critical that Bonneville be allowed to continue making
important investments in upgrading its transmission infrastructure.
Last year's budget called for legislation that would have effectively
ended critical transmission upgrades already underway in the Pacific
Northwest by effectively exhausting BPA's borrowing authority in 2008.
I hope that Dr. Bodman's further education on these matters will yield
his commitment to ensure that these transmission upgrades can be
completed--a key piece in making our energy system more reliable.
Again, I am supporting Dr. Bodman's nomination. As the next Secretary
of Energy, he will be our Nation's chief energy policymaker. I look
forward to further educating Dr. Bodman on these issues that are so
important to my State and working with him to address these important
challenges. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Bodman's
responses to my questions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question No. 180: When we met, we informally discussed the
challenges the Northwest faces with respect to electricity
rates and our efforts to deal with the aftermath of the
Western energy crisis of 2000-2001. I know you recognize the
sad fact that the Northwest is far from out of the woods on
the rates crisis.
Obviously, the Western market meltdown has had a profound
impact on my state's economy, the pocketbooks and economic
well-being of my constituents--too many of whom have had to
make the choice between keeping their heat and lights on and
buying food, paying rent, and purchasing prescription drugs.
In some parts of Washington State, utility disconnection
rates have risen more than 40 percent.
People just can't pay their utility bills. So you can
imagine, what we've seen and heard since the height of the
crisis--as we've learned about the market manipulation and
fraud that took place in the Western market, while Enron
energy traders laughed about the plight of ``Grandma
Millie''--has added tremendous insult to substantial economic
injury.
Moreover, the Western crisis has brought to the forefront a
number of very important policy questions about the kind of
behavior that will be tolerated in our nation's electricity
markets, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
has continued to pursue its ``restructuring'' agenda.
As the Secretary of Energy, you would have a very
important, leading role-defined in the 1977 Department of
Energy Organization Act--in guiding overall electric
regulatory policy.
[[Page S631]]
As such, before I get into some of the specifics, I want to
make sure we are on the same page when it comes to these
broader principles and policies:
First, do you agree that the types of schemes used by Enron
traders--manipulation tactics with famous nicknames like Get
Shorty, Death Star and Ricochet, many of which involved the
falsification of data and have been deemed illegal by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)--are practices
that must not be tolerated in our nation's electricity
markets?
Answer: Senator Cantwell, illegal market manipulation
certainly cannot be tolerated, and we should vigorously
enforce the relevant laws.
Question No. 181: Do you also agree that, as a matter of
common-sense policy, the victims of these schemes should not
have to pay the inflated power prices resulting from market
manipulation?
Answer: We must take appropriate action to protect
consumers against the effects of illegal market manipulation.
Question No. 182: Do you also agree that this principle is
even more important in instances in which the company
perpetrating these schemes has done so while providing false
information to federal regulators, making it impossible for
those regulators to ensure markets are functioning properly?
Answer: Any form of market manipulation, including
providing false information to regulators as you have
described, is intolerable and we should vigorously enforce
the relevant laws. As you know, FERC and/or the courts have
the authority to review such cases and make appropriate
judgments.
Question No. 183: I particularly want to ask you your views
about instances where the company perpetrating these schemes
has frustrated the efforts of regulators and parties trying
to find the truth about the depth of its deceptions, failing
to turn over relevant evidence in a timely fashion. Do you
believe that, as a matter of national energy policy, a
company like that should still be allowed to reap the profits
of its market manipulation schemes?
Answer: As I am not aware of all the details of current
allegations, I cannot comment at this time but I would
reassert that I agree that regulatory authorities should act
appropriately to protect consumers against unscrupulous or
illegal conduct.
Question No. 184: Sadly, the theoretical situation I
outlined in my first question is not theoretical at all. It's
the situation that has been unfolding at FERC for the past
few years. Not only are Western parties trying to recover
some small fraction of the money they lost to Enron as a
result of its unscrupulous trading practices, they are trying
to avoid paying even more. Right now, Enron is claiming
utilities in Washington state and Nevada alone owe about a
half billion dollars more--for power Enron never even
delivered. You can understand just how outrageous this seems
to my constituents, who are already struggling to pay their
power bills.
Unfortunately, justice delayed is justice denied for
Enron's victims. It has literally been years now, in which
the ratepayers of my state--who have already suffered
enough--have been waiting for the other shoe to drop.
My understanding is that the Secretary of Energy has, under
the DOE Organization Act, substantial discretion to intervene
in matters pending before the Commission. There is also
substantial precedent, as both Secretaries Richardson and
Abraham have involved themselves in various ways in matters
before FERC. I can understand why. I imagine that any
Secretary would have a considerable interest in doing so, in
ensuring that regulatory matters are being handled in a
manner consistent with national energy policy. I hope that
you agree that what I've outlined above--the scenario in
which Enron is allowed to collect money for power never
delivered, at outrageous rates resulting from market
manipulation--is not in the public interest, and is not the
energy policy endorsed by this Administration.
Will you commit to me that, if confirmed as Secretary, you
would use your authority and intervene with FERC to prevent
ENRON from collecting these so-called ``termination
payments'' which harm Western consumers?
Answer: Senator Cantwell, under section 405 of the DOE
Organization Act, the Secretary of Energy has the ability to
intervene, as of right, in proceedings before FERC. It is my
understanding that there currently are matters pending before
FERC, as well as in the courts, relating to Enron, and that
some of those matters have been going on for several months
or years. If confirmed, I will look into the matter and
evaluate whether it would be appropriate for DOE to intervene
at this point in those proceedings at FERC.
Question No. 185: In our previous meeting we also had the
opportunity to discuss the importance of Hanford cleanup to
the people of Washington State and the Pacific Northwest as a
whole. It's also my belief that cleaning up the legacy of our
defense efforts must be high on our list of national
priorities. Cleanup suffers, however, when relationships
between the states and DOE, the Congressional delegation and
other stakeholders are damaged by the bad faith actions of
one of the parties.
I know you are aware of what happened last year, when DOE-
authored language was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2005
Defense Authorization bill, behind closed doors, in a
Committee that is not the rightful forum for debate on the
issue of high-level nuclear waste and how it should be
treated and disposed of.
This legislative end-run was viewed by myself and Sen.
Murray, as well as the State of Washington and many of our
constituents, as an ill-considered attempt to take short-cuts
at Hanford.
Will you ensure that the DOE will not attempt a similar
legislative end-run around the State of Washington and its
Congressional delegation on the issue of high-level waste
reclassification, during your tenure as the Secretary of
Energy?
Answer: Senator, I appreciated the opportunity to meet with
you to hear your views about the Hanford cleanup. I agree
with you on the importance of cleaning up the Hanford site in
a manner that is protective of human health and the
environment. The remediation of liquid radioactive waste
stored in aging underground tanks in Washington, Idaho and
South Carolina is by far the greatest environmental challenge
facing the Department of Energy. It is my understanding that
the legislation that was enacted in the last Congress only
affects the Department's sites in South Carolina and Idaho.
If confirmed, I can assure you that the Department will
consult with you and the State of Washington on the cleanup
of tank waste.
Question No. 186: Among the biggest challenges at Hanford
is the cleanup of 53 million gallons of nuclear waste,
contained in 177 tanks within 7 miles of the Columbia River.
Already, some 67 tanks have leaked an estimated one million
gallons of this waste into the ground.
Retrieving and disposing of the waste in these tanks is one
of the most challenging--yet crucial--components of
successful Hanford cleanup. The TriParty Agreement lays out
the terms of the relationship between the State of Washington
and federal government when it comes to cleanup. In the view
of the State of Washington, the agreement vests DOE with the
responsibility of retrieving and cleaning up ``everything
that is technically feasible but no less than 99 percent'' of
the waste in these tanks.
As Secretary of Energy, will you commit to abide by this
requirement of the TriParty Agreement?
Answer: The Department will abide by the terms of the
TriParty Agreement.
Question No. 187: As you may know, this Administration's
previous budgets have proposed withholding certain cleanup
funds until DOE has secured what it views to be favorable
outcomes in pending litigation or legislation. This has been
widely viewed by many as blackmail, with the purpose of
getting the State of Washington to back-down on its cleanup
requirements at Hanford.
Will you commit to me that, as Secretary, you will not use
these same tactics?
Answer: Senator, I am unaware of the situation you
describe. If confirmed, I intend to review the accelerated
cleanup program and I would be happy to meet with you and
discuss this further.
Question No. 188: More generally, are you committed to
working collaboratively with Washington State regulators, the
affected communities' and workers' representatives, and the
members of the Washington State Congressional delegation to
ensure that the cleanup is fully funded and completed as soon
as possible--in a manner that ensures the equal protection of
the workers, the public, and the environment?
Answer: Senator, I believe that it is important for the
Department to work cooperatively with the congressional
delegations that represent the DOE sites, as well as with the
State regulators, the local community and the workers'
representatives. If confirmed, I would expect this practice
to be carried out.
Question No. 189: Last year, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and DOE conducted
audits at the Hanford nuclear site on the issue of worker
health and safety. Both NIOSH and DOE came up with a long
list of recommendations and corrective actions. Many
improvements have been made. But I also want to ensure that
DOE, as a matter of policy, is doing its job in ensuring
adequate health and safety protections on an ongoing basis.
As Secretary, what procedures will you put in place to
assure that the Department continues to improve its health
and safety protection for workers at sites like Hanford?
Answer: The safety of the Department's workers will be a
top priority for me if confirmed. I will review the safety
procedures and determine whether additional measures are
needed.
Question No. 190: Many major DOE procurement decisions are
being challenged and overturned. What will you do to improve
the quality, fairness, timeliness, and success of the DOE
procurement process?
Answer: Offerors that are not awarded contracts have the
right to protest the contract award and other decisions to
the Government Accountability Office. It is my understanding
that, on a relative basis, very few protests are filed
against DOE award decisions. If confirmed, I will ensure that
DOE has appropriate standards, systems and quality controls
in place to guard against irregularities in the contracting
process.
Question No. 191: Another major concern on the part of many
of my constituents is whether DOE is implementing the
President's directive to increase government procurements
with small business.
What will you do to improve and expand DOE procurements
that benefit small businesses, particularly those based in
the local communities most affected by contamination and
which will suffer severe economic
[[Page S632]]
impacts when cleanup is done if local, sustainable businesses
are not developed?
Answer: If confirmed, 1 would fully support the President's
policy of increasing government procurements with small
businesses.
Question No. 192: Will you support efforts to expedite
evaluations of procurement involving local small businesses--
particularly since extended delays are especially harmful to
small companies that don't have the resources to keep teams
mobilized?
Answer: It would be my intent, if confirmed, to review all
of the issues surrounding small business procurement and I
would be happy at the appropriate time to meet with you to
discuss the matter further.
Question No. 193: DOE has made a major commitment to the
Hanford Vitrification Project. The Defense Board and others
have raised questions about the safety of the design and
prospect for cost increases and schedule slippage. Given the
supreme importance of this project to the future of Hanford
cleanup, what do you propose to ensure that this facility
stays on track? Is there some value in an independent review?
Answer: Senator, I appreciated the opportunity to discuss
this issue with you during our recent meeting. I understand
the importance of the Hanford cleanup and I share your view
that the cleanup must proceed in a timely, efficient manner
that is protective of human health and the environment. If
confirmed, I will review the Hanford Vitrification Project
and would welcome an opportunity to meet with you again to
discuss this project further.
Question No. 194: The Volpentest HAMMER Training and
Education Center at Hanford was built by DOE to ensure the
health and safety of Hanford cleanup workers and emergency
responders. HAMMER's unique hands-on ``Training as Real as It
Gets'' is essential to the safe, cost effective, and
successful completion of Hanford cleanup. Further, as the
cleanup workforce decreases, more of HAMMER's capabilities
will become available for other DOE missions, such as energy
assurance and hydrogen safety, and for training law
enforcement, security, emergency response, and other homeland
security-related personnel.
Will you ensure that DOE continues to fully utilize HAMMER
to protect the safety and health of Hanford cleanup workers?
Will you support the development of new DOE training missions
at HAMMER? Will you help with the Department of Homeland
Security and other agencies to develop, expand, and support
other training missions at HAMMER?
Answer: Senator, I am not familiar with this issue. If
confirmed, I would review this matter and I would be happy to
report to you my thoughts on HAMMER.
Question No. 195: When DOE recompetes its major site
contracts for complex cleanup projects, the process often
takes up to two years with extensive worker and community
anxiety. Then, it may take up to another two years for the
new contractor management team to get up to speed fully with
subsequent impacts on the projects, workers, and communities.
None of this is good for DOE, the workers, or the
communities.
Will you consult to the extent allowed by law with the
affected workers' and communities' representatives before a
recompete decision is made, to determine the best course of
action?
Answer: Generally when the government considers contract
competition it uses an extensive array of mechanisms to
convey public information and obtain feedback from interested
parties. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOE employs these
mechanisms and practices to the maximum extent practicable.
Question No. 196: Dr. Bodman, I also know you are beginning
to understand the importance that I, and others in the
Northwest delegation, place on the Bonneville Power
Administration and the policies that affect its long-term
viability. BPA has for decades been the engine of the
regional economy. As such, I'm sure we'll be in frequent
contact on many BPA-related issues.
First, I want to confirm something we've previously
discussed. Namely, I want to ensure that you understand that
the decision of whether BPA should join a regional
transmission organization (RTO) is something that must be
decided in the Northwest, after an inclusive stakeholder
process that considers the real world costs and benefits of
such a change. Can you commit to me that you will not, in
your potential capacity as Energy Secretary, force BPA to
join an RTO?
Answer: Senator, I appreciate your bringing the issue to my
attention and while I do not feel I am in a position to make
a commitment at this time, I can provide assurances that I
will work with you on this issue should I be confirmed.
Question No. 197: Second, as you know, Bonneville has the
statutory responsibility to maintain the reliability of the
Northwest transmission system, of which it currently owns
more than 75 percent. Interestingly, the Northwest is one of
the few regions in the country where transmission lines are
currently under construction. This is due to the unique way
in which BPA uses borrowing authority, backed by Northwest
ratepayers, to finance these investments. Unfortunately, the
President's budget last year called for legislation that
would tie Bonneville's hands, and make it virtually
impossible for the agency to continue the transmission
expansions necessary to maintain the reliability of the
Northwest system. Under the proposal, BPA would exhaust its
borrowing authority in 2008--well before the region can
complete the needed transmission upgrades. Can you commit to
me that as Secretary of Energy you will not support
legislation that would impair BPA's ability to make these
crucial investments?
Answer: I am not familiar with the funding levels being
requested or other proposals for the Bonneville Power
Administration in the FY '06 budget. If confirmed, I will
evaluate this matter and I would be happy to meet with you to
discuss your concerns further.
Question No. 198: For the past two years, the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory has been working with the
Department to solve the issue of replacement facilities and
lab space in the 300 Area of Hanford. The 300 Area is home to
critical on-going research in science and national and
homeland security, but the area is scheduled for closure by
2009 as part of the DOE accelerated cleanup program.
Consequently, PNNL must vacate the area on a tight schedule,
and without interrupting critical work for the DOE, NNSA, and
DHS.
Planning for these facilities has begun, but the most
substantial funding needs lie ahead. PNNL is an enduring
asset to the state and the entire Pacific Northwest region,
and we cannot afford to come up short on this investment. I
understand we are in a difficult budget environment, but I
would like to seek your commitment for continued funding.
Will you commit to keep this effort on track?
Answer: I agree with you that the research that takes place
at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory 300 Area is important to
both science and homeland security issues. It is my
understanding that DOE and the Department of Homeland
Security are working cooperatively to ensure that a new
laboratory is constructed and that the important missions at
the laboratory go uninterrupted. If confirmed, I will review
this matter and support it as appropriate.
Question No. 199: Research and technology applications
developed to secure America's electricity grid system are
being funded by the Department's Office of Electricity
Transmission and Distribution. Many entities in Washington
State, including the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
have formed an Alliance that is working closely with the
Department to help bring these technologies forward. I
strongly support the GridWise and GridWorks programs and seek
your support. Do you plan to make research and development
through these programs a top priority?
Answer: I appreciate your support for the efforts of the
Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution and if
confirmed, look forward to working with you on programs like
the GridWise and GridWorks programs.
Question No. 200: As you may know, I sponsored legislation
in the last Congress to support the Genomes to Life program
at the Department of Energy. I strongly support an expanded
program and development of research centers to support this
goal. Last year, the Office of Science released a Twenty-Year
Facility Outlook that included four Genomes to Life centers.
The FY05 Energy and Water Development appropriation includes
$10M to begin preliminary design of the first facility. Are
you committed to fulfilling the implementation of the 20-year
strategy, including the four GTL centers?
Answer: I will need to familiarize myself with this 20-year
strategy for science facilities, if I am confirmed as
Secretary. But, I can assure you that if confirmed,
maintaining a robust scientific infrastructure will be an
important priority for me.
Question No. 201: Last week, the Washington Post reported
that the Bush administration's budget request would freeze
most spending, including science, and slash or eliminate
dozens of federal programs. In my view, this is a very short-
sighted approach to ensuring the economic future of this
country. In my state, for example, the DOE's Office of
Science invests more than $135 million a year in university
grants and in support of the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. Can you share with us your commitment to science
and R&D investments being made at the Department of Energy?
Answer: The Department of Energy has a responsibility to
maintain America's world leadership in Science. The Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory certainly plays a key role in
the Department's and the Nation's scientific enterprise and,
if confirmed, I will pay very close attention to how we
nurture that important asset in your state. While we pursue
the President's commitment to deficit reduction, I can assure
you that I will also work to maintain and improve upon
America's scientific infrastructure that is the envy of the
world.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am in support of the nomination of Dr.
Samuel W. Bodman to be Secretary of Energy.
I look forward to working closely with Dr. Bodman as we tackle the
important task of crafting a national energy policy that assures our
Nation's energy independence and energy security and at the same time
protects our air, land, and water for future generations.
Colorado is blessed with an abundance of natural energy resources,
and the oil and gas industry is a significant part of our state
economy. As long as America is dependent on foreign oil for a
significant part of our energy needs,
[[Page S633]]
however, our economy and our national security are at risk. We need to
move rapidly toward energy independence. Renewable energy and
conservation must also play a significant role as, together, we look
for ways to diversify our portfolio of energy sources and reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels. As we work to attain energy independence,
we can also strengthen our economy, increase our national security, and
protect our air, land, and water.
During Dr. Bodman's confirmation hearing before the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, I had the opportunity to discuss with Dr.
Bodman a few of the many issues affecting Colorado, to which I hope Dr.
Bodman will immediately turn his attention upon being confirmed today.
First, Dr. Bodman understands the importance of DOE's environmental
cleanup at Rocky Flats, and he assures me that he will continue to make
this a priority for the Department until the site is cleaned up and a
large portion of it converted to a national wildlife refuge.
The cleanup of Rocky Flats serves as a model for the cleanup of DOE
facilities nationwide, and it is therefore important to the people of
my State and to the country as a whole for DOE to make its plant
closure mission at Rocky Flats a priority and to complete environmental
cleanup, waste management, and decommissioning by December 2006.
Second, I specifically requested that Dr. Bodman look into the
Department's refusal, so far, to comply with the State of Colorado's
institutional control laws, which were passed unanimously by the
Colorado legislature and signed into law by our Governor. DOE has
refused to put those restrictions in an environmental covenant, as
required under State law. DOE has refused to comply with other States'
institutional control laws as well. This refusal has raised serious
questions about the long-term reliability of the cleanup now underway
at DOE facilities across the country.
I strongly urge the Department to adopt a policy to comply with State
institutional control laws. These are valid State laws. They enhance
the safety of cleanups, and the cost of compliance is minimal. In my
judgment, DOE is required to comply with these laws under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act.
Dr. Bodman assured me that he would look into this important matter
promptly, and I intend to hold him to that promise.
Third, Dr. Bodman pledged his support for the Department's National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. As you know, Mr. President,
NREL is the Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for
renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. I am a
proud supporter of NREL and its research projects. Providing NREL with
the resources it needs will lead our Nation to greater energy
independence and security.
In response to my questions, Dr. Bodman assures me the Department
fully supports the construction of NREL's new Science and Technology
Facility--the first new research laboratory on the lab's main campus in
nearly a decade. The new facility will house key elements of NREL's
world-class research in hydrogen and other promising renewable energy
technologies and will push the envelope on sustainable, energy
efficient building design. Construction of the facility is scheduled
for completion in early 2007.
With these and other answers to my questions, I am pleased to vote
today in support of Dr. Bodman's nomination to be our country's next
Energy Secretary. But I want to make clear that I will continuously
work to ensure that Dr. Bodman and the Department of Energy live up to
these commitments to Colorado--that is my duty and I intend to fulfill
it.
The Congress will work on an energy bill again this year. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee and with Dr. Bodman to do everything we can to help
develop a comprehensive and sustainable energy strategy that is also
protective of a healthy environment in the West and across the country.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today the Senate is expected to confirm
the nomination of Samuel Bodman to be the next Secretary of Energy.
As Secretary of Energy, Mr. Bodman will face challenges that are
critically important to our economy and our national security. We
depend on a stable supply of energy to keep our economy moving. Yet,
the United States continues to rely too heavily on oil imports from
other parts of the world, especially the Middle East. We import about
55 percent of the oil we consume, and this percentage is expected to
increase to 70 percent by 2025. Similarly, we are relying more and more
on imports of natural gas. This dependency puts us at a strategic and
economic disadvantage. The Secretary of Energy must work with the
diverse energy interests, the administration, and the Congress to
develop a comprehensive Energy bill that will move us toward energy
independence.
The Secretary of Energy position is especially important to North
Dakota's energy producers and economy. North Dakota can be a
significant supplier of electricity to the rest of the country. My
State is blessed with an 800-year supply of lignite coal and the
potential to be the biggest wind energy producer in the country.
The main challenge we face is developing a transmission grid that
will allow our electricity producers to fully utilize these resources
and send power to the rest of the country. We need to invest
significant new resources in finding new ways to upgrade and expand our
transmission capacity and reliability.
We also need to increase investment in, and more aggressively pursue,
the development of clean coal technology. By reducing pollution from
coal-burning power plants, clean coal technology will ensure that this
plentiful, domestic source of energy remains a vital part of our
national energy portfolio.
The nomination of Samuel Bodman is encouraging. Mr. Bodman has proven
himself to be an effective manager as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
and Deputy Secretary of Commerce. In addition to his exemplary
managerial skills, Mr. Bodman has the background knowledge and
intellect to understand the importance of research on, and development
of, advanced energy technologies. These technologies, including clean
coal technology, will help us meet our country's energy challenges. I
look forward to working with Mr. Bodman on the funding and development
of grant programs to bring advanced technology to North Dakota's power
producers and transmitters.
Today I offer my support for Senate confirmation of Mr. Samuel Bodman
as our next Secretary of Energy.
____________________