[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1318-E1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DOC HASTINGS

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 23, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1119) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 
     and 1999, and for other purposes.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the 1997 Department of 
Defense Authorization Act included several provisions designed to 
encourage the Department of Energy to implement reforms in the 
management of environmental cleanup programs.
  Unfortunately, Department management continues to struggle with 
ongoing cleanup programs, as evidenced by the problems facing the Pit 9 
project in Idaho, and problems with the transition to new contractors 
at a number of sites.
  Recognizing these programs, a bipartisan group of lawmakers spent 
several months studying the Department system. Working with our 
colleagues, with our constituents, and with the Nation's Governors and 
State attorneys general, we came up with a series of recommendations 
which were designed to help cut through the redtape and bureaucracy 
surrounding the DOE cleanup system.
  These provisions were included in the House version of the 1997 
Defense bill, and are now a part of Public Law 104-260.
  Unfortunately, the Department has virtually ignored congressional 
intent, and has failed to implement almost every single one of these 
recommendations. For instance:

[[Page E1319]]

  The Department has taken no action to reappoint site managers at each 
cleanup site, as required by section 3173 of the bill.
  The Department has failed to submit to Congress a report on section 
3175, which requires the establishment of a technology deployment 
program at DOE sites.
  To the best of my knowledge, the Department has failed to comply with 
section 3174 of the law, which requires that the Secretary certify that 
any new Department paperwork requirements--called orders--are necessary 
for ``the protection of human health and the environment or safety, the 
fulfillment of legal requirements, or the conduct of critical 
administrative functions.'' This was meant to reduce the absolutely 
unbelievable amount of paperwork that exists in the DOE system.
  The Department has failed to work with State leaders to ensure that 
the provisions cover sites other than the Hanford Nuclear Reservation 
in my district, as suggested by section 3172.
  And until this past month, the Department had ignored provisions that 
Congress had included to speed up transfers of funding from one project 
to another. And although these limited reprogrammings have recently 
been approved at Hanford and Savannah River, Department budget 
officials are apparently misinterpreting even these simple procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress included these provisions as a subtle reminder 
to the Department that the time for reform had come. The Department's 
decision to ignore these provisions demonstrates that they have little 
interest in taking the steps necessary to assure Congress that the $6 
billion we appropriate for these programs is well spent.
  This amendment strengthens the existing provisions by making a number 
of the changes mandatory, instead of voluntary. It will empower the 
site manager to take action to enhance environmental restoration at the 
site. It puts a 2-month limit on the amount of time that DOE 
headquarters may take to review urgent budget transfer requests. It 
gives the site manager the responsibility for considering the cost and 
risk reduction benefits in making decisions in cleanup actions.
  Some have argued that this will grant unilateral authority to the 
site manager. That is simply not true. The Secretary will retain the 
ultimate decision making authority. And the Secretary is also given the 
authority to remove a site manager, if he sees fit.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my original intention that this amendment should 
cover all Department of Energy sites. However, we agreed at this point 
to limit it to the Hanford site, with the expectation that the 
Department will seek to apply similar provisions across the complex.
  This is a simple, but commonsense step towards imposing responsible 
management on a Department which has clearly demonstrated that it has 
had problems managing the billions of dollars that we have given them 
each year. As a result, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
provision.

                          ____________________