[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12071-H12072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MISUSE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY BY HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] is recognized for 5 minutes.


  putting to rest rumors about chairman of the committee on national 
                                security

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, along the vein of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], I am a Congressman from South Carolina, and I 
am so glad to hear this put to a rest. This is a funny town where 
rumors can start without any basis. I think that was something that 
needed to be said. I congratulate the gentleman for saying it, because 
the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, has been a great 
Member of Congress, he has been a good chairman, and serves his country 
well.
  The reason I really want to share a few minutes with those that are 
listening tonight is that I live in the Third Congressional District, 
and the Savannah River site is the largest DOE industrial facility in 
the chain. I have been told that, and I believe that to be correct. We 
have lost about 8,900 people due to layoffs in the last few years where 
we are trying to downsize the 

[[Page H 12072]]
Department of Energy, make it more efficient, get better use of 
taxpayer dollars. Then to wake up and read the newspaper and find that 
the Department of Energy chief, Ms. Hazel O'Leary, Cabinet member, has 
taken $43,500 of public money to go out and investigate the media, rate 
newspapers, rate reporters, try to coerce those who give bad stories, 
in her opinion, to give better stories, that is at least two, maybe 
three jobs at the Savannah River site.
  Along with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] who made this 
amendment, can you imagine what would happen to a Member of Congress if 
they did such a thing? They should lose their job, and so should Ms. 
O'Leary. This is really an offensive event. It was one of many events 
that show there is no leadership over in the Department of Energy. I 
think it is a good example of what happens when an agency continues to 
grow with no clear mission or well-defined purpose. All of a sudden, it 
is more important what people think of you than what you are actually 
doing.
  I would just like to let everyone know that I find it highly 
inappropriate for the Department of Energy chief to take $43,500 of 
hard-earned public money and try to recreate her image at a time when 
we are downsizing the Department and we are making hard decisions 
throughout the land. The problem with the Department of Energy is not 
an image problem, it is a substance problem. We need to have a well-
defined, clearly-defined energy policy. We need to clean these sites up 
instead of talking about it. We need to get on and develop our national 
defense needs, like tritium production, which is within the venue of 
the Department of Energy.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield on that?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time talking about travel, 
and now this silliness where the Secretary has actually spent money, 
she is so paranoid apparently, about the way the Department itself, as 
well as she, personally, is being perceived in the press that she is 
spending taxpayer dollars to have reporters investigated.
  But what is really at stake here is the fact that the primary 
responsibility of the Department of Energy is the warehousing and 
safeguarding of our nuclear weapons stockpile. Think about it. We are 
talking about bombs that can wipe out this Earth many, many times over.

  When we cannot even have a Secretary and a Department that can 
control its own travel, its own spending, and is so paranoid that it is 
checking up on reporters in that way, that bodes terribly, terribly 
poorly for this core mission, which is critically important. We are not 
talking about muckraking for political benefit, here. What we are 
talking about is an extraordinarily important responsibility that rests 
with the Secretary of the Department of Energy.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there has been a bill going forward that 
says that we are trying to reduce the redundancy in government and 
eliminate the Department of Energy as a Cabinet level agency. I think 
this shows that this individual will take any means necessary to 
prevent the needed cuts to take place in her bureaucracy, even to the 
point of going and investigating some of the other reporters and 
Members of Congress, as well as reporters. I think that, as 68 others 
have, I will join and call for the resignation of the Secretary of 
Energy.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, Mr. Speaker, the article to which we are 
referring has a unique comment in it. A DOE official responded 
concerning the spending of $43,500 to go out and investigate media 
outlets and reporters who report on the Department of Energy, favorable 
or unfavorable ratings, and made the comment:

       A reporter's unfavorable rating meant we weren't getting 
     our message across, that we needed to work on this person a 
     little.

  To me, that is a statement beyond belief, that again, if I as a 
Member of Congress took taxpayer money entrusted to my care to go out 
and work on somebody to make me look better, I should lose my job.

                          ____________________