releases: http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=040ffdbf-1192-4021-85c3-cb9c910cf394
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=040ffdbf-1192-4021-85c3-cb9c910cf394 | Barrasso Questions DOE, DOI Nominees on Uranium, Anti-Coal Stream Rule IG Report | 2015-10-20 | 2015 | 2015-10 | Republican | House | WY | John Barrasso | B001261 | www.barrasso.senate.gov | legacy | WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) questioned Department of Interior (DOI) nominee Mary L. Kendall and Department of Energy (DOE) nominee John Frances Kotek about excess uranium management and an inspector generals (IG) report on the DOIs anti-coal stream rule. Ms. Kendall is nominated to be inspector general at DOI. Mr. Kotek is nominated to be an assistant secretary at DOE (nuclear energy). Question to Ms. Kendall on Stream Buffer Zone Rulemaking IG Report Ms. Kendall, Id like to ask you about a report that your officethe Office of Inspector Generalissued on the Office of Surface Minings ongoing stream buffer zone rulemaking. For years, members of Congress have expressed grave concerns about this rulemaking. Prior to the issuance of your report, the House held a number of hearings which examined the rulemaking, including the jobs that would be lost as a result of the rule. A redacted copy of the report indicates that your office completed the report on February 28, 2013. But your office did not release the report to the public or to Congress until December 20, 201310 months after your department completed the report. So you completed it, and then we waited 10 months until you released it. So December 20. I would note that December 20th was the Friday right before Christmas. It was also three days after this committee held a confirmation hearing on Janice Schneidernow she was nominated to oversee the very office under investigationthe Office of Surface Mining. So you waited 10 months, and then you released it the Friday before Christmas, three days after the committee held the confirmation hearingso we couldnt ask questions about it. So the question is, shouldnt it have occurred to you that the Senate and the public had an interest in seeing your report prior to Ms. Schneiders confirmation hearing? To people who look at this, it certainly seems like youre playing games with Congress. So I would love to hear back from you on that. You know, I understand you did provide a copy of the report to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. So Im also going to ask that you look intobecause prior to December 20th, if you shared the reportor any information related to the reportwith anyone else outside the Office of the Inspector General? If so, with whom? So Ill ask that you follow up in writing. Click here for video of Sen. Barrasso questioning Ms. Kendall on stream buffer zone rulemaking IG report Question to Mr. Kotek on Excess Uranium Management Mr. Kotek, before joining the Department of Energy earlier this year, you worked as a strategic consultant for the Fluor Corporation. Since 2011, the Department has given Fluor about a billion dollars worth of publicly owned uranium from its stockpile of excess uranium. In exchange, Fluor has provided decommissioning services at the departments gaseous diffusion plant in Ohio. The Government Accountability Office has said that these transactions violate federal law. So I question whether the department receives full valuation for the uranium that it gives to this company. So if confirmedyou will be responsible for overseeing the publics stockpile of excess uranium. You will play a significant role in determining the circumstances and conditions under which the department disposes of excess uranium. So given your past employment by the Fluor Corporation, do you plan to recuse yourself from decisions that would benefit this corporation? And if not, why not? Click here for video of Sen. Barrasso questioning Mr. Kotek on excess uranium management Question to Mr. Kotek on Ensuring Public Gets Full Value for Excess Uranium I question whether the department actually is receiving full value for the uranium that it gives to the [Fluor] corporation. The corporation did not consume the uranium that it receives from the department. Instead, it sells the uranium, as you know, to another party. Earlier this year, I called on the department to condition all future transfers of uranium on the requirement that the company publicly disclose the terms under which it sells the uranium. So if confirmed, would you be willing to do that? I question whether the department actually is receiving full value for the uranium that it gives to the corporation. The corporation did not consume the uranium that it receives from the Department. Instead, it sells the uranium, as you know, to another party. Earlier this year, I called on the department to condition all future transfers of uranium on the requirement that the company publicly disclose the terms under which it sells the uranium. So if confirmed, would you be willing to do that? Do you think this it is an unreasonable request given your past employment by the Fluor Corporation? Click here for video of Sen. Barrasso questioning Mr. Kotek on getting full value for uranium ### https://www.barrasso.senate.gov Twitter | Facebook | You Tube | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |