[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16931-S16932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   HAZEL O'LEARY: IMAGE IS EVERYTHING

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, may I pose a not-so-hypothetical 
question? If you were head of a Government agency, and that agency were 
being criticized by the press, Members of Congress, and the American 
public for inefficiency and incompetence; if, Mr. President, you knew 
that the Government--at the American people's behest--was undergoing a 
massive effort to cut spending in order to balance the budget, what 
would you do, Mr. President?
  If you are like most people, your answer might go something like 
this: I would listen carefully to the criticisms, I would take a good 
hard look at my department and make the necessary changes, and I would 
do everything possible to save money.
  If, however, you are Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, the answer is a 
bit different. Secretary O'Leary, whose Department of Energy is still 
justifying its own existence, paid $43,500--taxpayer money, Mr. 
President--for a media analysis company to track her and her 
department's coverage in the media.

[[Page S 16932]]

  Here's how today's Wall Street Journal describes it:

       Mrs. O'Leary quietly hired an investigative service to poke 
     into the reporters who were poking around the DOE. From April 
     through August, the service, Washington-based Carma 
     International, tracked more than two dozen individual 
     reporters and hundreds of newspapers, magazines and 
     newscasts. It also pored over thousands of stories, giving 
     each one a numerical ranking based on how favorable or 
     unfavorable it was. It then calculated scores for how 
     favorably or unfavorably the DOE fared on various issues, 
     from nuclear waste to Mrs. O'Leary's own reputation. And it 
     scrutinized sources quoted in those stories, coming up with 
     its own ``Top 25'' list of ``Unfavorable Sources.''

  Wanda Briggs and John Stang, reporters with the Tri-Cities Herald in 
Washington State, are among those the investigative service monitored.
  Mr. President, the foolishness and irresponsibility of this venture 
boggles the mind. The first, most obvious point to raise is the fact 
that we are on a mission to balance the budget. For Secretary O'Leary 
to waste taxpayer dollars on her image is inexcusable. While we in 
Congress are trying to reduce the size and cost of Government so that 
we may achieve a balanced budget in 7 years, a member of the 
President's Cabinet feels free to throw money into frivolous projects.

  Oh, and by the way, the Wall Street Journal quotes Secretary 
O'Leary's spokeswoman as saying that the investigative service ``wasn't 
particularly useful,'' and that the Secretary read very little of what 
the service had to offer since ``she found it too complicated.'' I 
think it's time the Secretary understood that we can neither afford, 
nor will we allow, $43,000 mistakes.
  Second, Mr. President, of all the various responsibilities of the 
DOE--and they are serious responsibilities indeed--using a private 
company to analyze Secretary O'Leary's image in the press is, to put it 
mildly, at the very bottom of the list.
  The challenges facing DOE in Washington State alone are stupendous:
  At the Hanford Nuclear Site, thousands of tons of nuclear waste lie 
underground, yards away from the Columbia River, posing a direct threat 
to the region's safety.
  Cleanup at Hanford, while progressing, still demands our utmost 
attention and concern. The health of the people of the Hanford region, 
and of the people all over the country who live near nuclear sites, 
requires that we remain fully committed to cleaning up the nuclear 
waste.
  That is just in my home State, Mr. President. Across the country, 
similar problems exist. So it is disturbing to learn that Secretary 
O'Leary's attention is being diverted by such trivial concerns as what 
the press is saying about her.
  Mr. President, over the last 18 months, almost 5,000 people have lost 
their jobs at Hanford. They are struggling and will continue to 
struggle with upheaval and uncertainty in their community. Meanwhile, 
the Secretary of Energy, someone who has potentially great influence 
over their fate, pulls a stunt like this. So much for setting an 
example at the top.
  There are a lot of people in this town for whom $43,500 is nothing--
less than nothing. In the White House, in Congress, in the agencies, 
people deal on a daily basis with money in the millions and billions. 
But Mr. President, for the peopel of Hanford, that's real money.
  There is a man in the Hanford area who lost his job more than 6 
months ago. He has talked with my office, and prefers to remain 
anonymous. For 15 years he worked at Westinghouse as a technologist. He 
paid his taxes, he was a Boy Scout, he provided for his family. He was 
laid off on April 28--in the same month that Secretary O'Leary began 
her quest for a better image. He has two children and two 
grandchildren. His wife recently had to quit her job due to illness. He 
is still looking for work.
  Coincidentally, Mr. President, this man's salary--before he was laid 
off--was $44,000. Secretary O'Leary spent over $43,000 for 4 months of 
useless media analysis. Food on the table, or image enhancement--Mr. 
President, just where do Hazel O'Leary's priorities lie?

                          ____________________