Grumbly, Tierney, and Leshy Nominations

This is a hearing on President Clinton's nominations for positions at the Departments of Energy and the Interior. The nominees are Thomas Grumbly, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Susan Tierney, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Domestic and International Energy Policy; and John Leshy, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

Without objection, the committee questionnaires and financial disclosure statements furnished by the nominees will be submitted for the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatfield follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK O. HATFIELD, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON Mr. Chairman, in this changing world of international and environmental priorities, the Assistant Secretaries of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, and Policy, Planning and Program Evaluation will be key players in Secretary O'Leary's restructuring and re-prioritizing of DOE's mission. I am pleased to note the high quality of the nominees before the Committee this morning, and I have confidence in their abilities to steer the Department in fresh, new directions. One such direction is the refocusing of a portion of DOE's mission from atomic weapons production to environmental restoration and clean up of existing nuclear weapons production facilities. One such facility, and perhaps the worst in terms of the degree and magnitude of radioactive contamination, is the Hanford Reservation in the State of Washington.

As many of my colleagues on this committee know, the shutdown of the weapons production facilities at Hanford and its subsequent clean-up efforts have been a top priority of mine during my tenure on this Committee. The waste problem at Hanford has immediate and deadly ramifications for the people of Oregon. Some specific areas of concern are: Transportation of waste to and from the Hanford Reservation; Groundwater contamination and the resulting seepage of radioactive waste into the Columbia River drainage; and past releases of radioactive gasses from the reservation in the 1940's and 1950's.

Over the last 10 years, through the Energy and Water Appropriations bill I have helped stop the operation of the N-Reactor, and the other weapons production facilities at Hanford. The DOE's mission is now refocused from weapons production

to environmental restoration and waste management. In fact, in fiscal year 1993, the Bush administration requested, and Congress appropriated $1.3 billion for clean-up at Hanford alone. Although there is not much immediate progress to show for this enormous expenditure, I am pleased to note that the Clinton administration has requested continued funding in its budget of approximately $1.6 billion for Hanford for fiscal year 1994. I share the Administration's sense of priority regarding the clean-up of Hanford, and I look forward to working with it in this endeavor. Again, I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee on these crucial issues and welcome the testimony of our nominees.

The CHAIRMAN. Before I get into the swearing of the witnesses, I want to see if Senator Wallop has comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. MALCOLM WALLOP, U.S. SENATOR FROM

WYOMING

Senator WALLOP. Mr. Chairman, I do, and thank you.

Let me join you in welcoming the nominees before the committee. Mr. Grumbly, Dr. Tierney, and Mr. Leshy are all qualified individuals and I suspect will win easy confirmation in the Senate. I spoke last week of my concerns about some of the Department of Interior's policies, and I spoke privately with Mr. Leshy about some of his views on western water and private property. I will explore those areas during the question and answer period.

But before we go any further, Mr. Chairman, I want to share with you a concern I have about the Department of Energy, and I am glad the Secretary is here this morning because I prefer saying these in her presence.

Last week several Members of Congress received a letter from Admiral Watkins in which he expressed concerns about the apparent deemphasis on nuclear safety by the by the Clinton administration. Initially it appeared that his concerns could be attributed to an honest disagreement on how to reorganize and staff the Department.

After reading, however, the Department's reaction to that letter in Sunday's New York Times, I became genuinely alarmed by the way Secretary O'Leary's chief spokesman tried to trivialize the Admiral's concerns. For example, the spokesman said, "The Administration has changed. I don't know if anyone has told the Admiral Secretary O'Leary is now the Secretary of Energy."

The spokesman went on to posit that non-nuclear safety concerns had been deemphasized by the Admiral and his pet, Steve Blush. Now, Mr. Chairman, both you and I have disagreed with the Admiral from time to time, but until DOE's spokesman piped up in the New York Times, I have never found anyone that has questioned the sincerity of either Jim Watkins or Steve Blush when it comes to safety, either occupational or nuclear.

So, upon further examination, I discovered that DOE's own internal documents collaborate the Admiral's concerns. A case in point is the March 25, 1993 memo to the senior staff at DOE listing the Department's short-term priorities as energy taxes and the economic stimulus package, climate change and global environmental review, environmental restoration, defense conversion, energy policy implementation for efficiency and renewables only, nuclear waste, technology development, mission of the labs, international priorities, energy supply initiatives, worker

safety and facility management, and reinventing DOE. Nowhere in that document is "nuclear safety" mentioned.

I note that is not to suggest that Secretary O'Leary, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is not committed to the goal of nuclear safety, but I will say that optically, at the very least, it looks like this most important topic is in fact not a priority at the Department of Energy, and it should be.

So, let me urge that senior officials at the Department, as well as this committee, undertake a serious and thorough review of the topics, including those mentioned in the Admiral's letter. I can assure you that the results will be a great deal more constructive than the amateurish response that the Secretary's spokesman gave to the New York Times. It was unbecoming. It was unnecessary, and it was unworthy.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wallop.

We are pleased to welcome at this time three of our colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Representative Markey. Gentlemen, if you would like to assume a place at the table.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, you and the committee have been extremely kind in permitting those of us from Massachusetts to make recommendations on some really truly outstanding public servants and also the individuals who are going to assume important responsibilities within the administration. We are here today to commend once again the President for truly an outstanding choice as an Assistant Secretary for Domestic and International Energy Affairs.

I will put my full statement in the record.

I will just say No. 1, a brilliant, brilliant academic career. Second, someone who has been a profound authoress, has written about these issues in a very constructive and positive way.

Third, has really been an extraordinary manager. I will just mention the different agencies that she has managed and very successfully in Massachusetts, five departments, Department of Environmental Management, Department of of Environmental Protection, the Metropolitan District Commission, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement, Department of Food and Agriculture, $140 million to $165 million budgets, more than 2,300 employees.

She is very, very knowledgeable about the Federal Government, has appeared before the governmental agencies on a number of different occasions. So, she is particularly well-equipped to serve the administration in this particular position. All of us in Massachusetts are proud of the job that she has done in Massachusetts.

The final point I would make, she had the confidence of governors both in the Republican and in the Democratic administrations. That is because of the virtual uniform support among those in the Republican and Democratic parties for the really outstanding job that she did in terms of Massachusetts and the environment. So, a very, very special choice.

« Previous Continue »

Books

Grumbly, Tierney, and Leshy Nominations: Hearing Before the ..., Volume 4