[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 999-1004]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           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.


                    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,

[[Page 1000]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1001]]

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.
       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.

[[Page 1002]]

       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 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

[[Page 1003]]

     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, 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

[[Page 1004]]

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.

                          ____________________