[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4352-S4354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 896. A bill to abolish the Department of Energy, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S4353]]

            THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ABOLISHMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Department of 
Energy Abolishment Act of 1999. I am pleased to include as original 
cosponsors Senator Spencer Abraham and Senator Jon Kyl and want to 
thank them for their support both this year and in past Congresses.
  I would also like to say that Congressman Todd Tiahrt will be 
introducing his DOE elimination bill today in the House of 
Representatives and I thank him for his continued leadership and 
cooperation on this issue.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, the effort to eliminate the DOE 
is not a new endeavor. In fact, since its inception, experts have been 
clamoring to eliminate the Department and to move its programs back to 
the agencies from which they were taken--agencies better suited to 
achieving specific programmatic goals.
  When we began to look into the specifics of DOE elimination in the 
104th Congress, we considered three main issues. First, we examined the 
fact that the Department of Energy no longer has a mission--a situation 
clearly reflected by the fact that nearly 85 percent of its budget is 
expended upon ``non-energy'' programs.
  The Department was created to develop a long-term energy strategy 
with an ultimate goal of energy indepedence. Sadly, we are now far more 
reliant upon foreign energy sources than we were when the Department 
was created.
  During the long oil lines of the 1970s, we were about 35 percent 
dependent on foreign oil. Today, it is more than 60 percent. So our 
foreign oil dependency has grown, and a lack of an energy strategy is a 
result of the failure of the DOE.
  I recall at one point Secretary Hazel O'Leary commented that we 
should consider taking the word ``energy'' out of the Department's name 
because it was such a small portion of its overall activity. Next, we 
studied those programs charged to the DOE and reviewed its ability to 
meet the related job requirements.
  And finally, we looked at the DOE's ever-increasing budget in light 
of the first two criterion--determining whether the taxpayers should be 
forced to expend nearly $18 billion annually on this bureacratic 
hodgepodge.
  Now, I want to be up front and say for the record that I acknowledge 
the difficulties inherent in eliminating a cabinet-level agency. I am 
keenly aware that the chances of passing this bill into law in this 
Congress, with this Administration, and in a presidential election year 
are difficult.
  Those chances may be exactly as they were in 1996 when I first 
introduced this legislation and when we held our first hearing on the 
matter, but unfortunately, the reasons for offering the bill haven't 
changed.
  In 1996, the opponents of this legislation charged that it was 
unnecessary. They claimed that the Department was headed in the right 
direction and making the changes necessary to both justify its mission 
and reduce its bloated budget.
  The call of many Members of Congress to eliminate the Department 
encouraged a group of DOE supporters to back a hastily arranged set of 
objectives in defense of the DOE's record of mismanagement.
  At the time of the 1996 hearings on this legislation, the backers of 
the Department relied largely on the DOE's Strategic Alignment and 
Downsizing Initiative as a defense against charges that the Department 
wasted too much money and that the Department was involved in a two-
decades old scavenger hunt for new missions.
  The Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative, its proponents 
claimed, would save taxpayers over $14 billion in 5 years and change 
the way the DOE conducted business. Regrettably, those projections were 
never met and the Initiative was never taken seriously--even by the 
same people who touted its promise.
  In fact, while they have continued their reluctance to reduce their 
budget--they have continuously sought billions of dollars in budget 
increase to fund their on-going mission creep. So I think its 
worthwhile to look back on the great hopes those opposed to my bill 
placed on this proposal.
  While speaking about this legislation on September 4, 1996, in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bennett Johnston said, 
``Maybe all of this would be worth doing if we were going to save the 
taxpayers a lot of money. But the operational savings claimed by S. 
1678 by the Heritage Foundation are actually less than the operational 
savings that would be realized by the Department's on-going strategic 
realignment initiative, savings that the GAO has testified are real.''
  In other words, the Senator was saying that the Department of Energy 
would save more money for the taxpayers by doing a better job than we 
could by eliminating the department.
  As I stated earlier, Mr. President, the Strategic Alignment and 
Downsizing Initiative--the great hope of DOE's defenders in 1996--
hasn't achieved one red cent of budgetary savings over the last 4 
years, and it doesn't appear that anything is going to change anytime 
soon. Regrettably, the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative 
isn't the only improvement the Department has failed to make over the 
past four years.
  Today, commercial nuclear waste still sits at 73 sites in 34 states 
despite both legal and contractual obligations that mandated the 
removal of the waste by January 31, 1998, more than a year ago.
  Since my election to the Senate in 1994, I have listened to a parade 
of DOE witnesses tell the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that 
they are committed to resolving this conflict and living up to their 
responsibilities. Every nominee I have questioned has told me how 
important this issue is to them and how they are going to work with 
Congress. But not one of them--not one--in any substantive way, has 
taken actions which generate faith in Congress that the DOE is capable 
of fulfilling its promises. Again--not one--nominee has delivered on 
their promises--instead, of what they need to say to get confirmed and 
then return to business as usual.
  They don't keep their promises. They say what they need to say, what 
Congress wants to hear to get confirmed, and then they go on with 
business as usual.
  Today, the Government Performance and Results Act paints a clear 
picture of how difficult it is to get a grip on the size of problems at 
the Department of Energy. The Department's final strategic plan, which 
took four years of preparation, scored a pathetic 43.5 points out of a 
possible 100. That is how good this is.
  And the DOE's FY99 annual performance plan was ranked fourth from 
last of all government agencies--scoring 30 out of a possible 100. No 
business, no college student, no family, could consistently perform so 
miserably and yet maintain a cushy existence of even larger and larger 
budgets.
  But thanks to an indifferent Administration, and a Congress that 
places too little importance on its oversight role, the DOE continues 
along with the knowledge that its protectors will keep the lights on 
and the funding flowing without any regard for the American taxpayer.
  And today, as this nation continues to grow increasingly dependent 
upon foreign oil--in total contrast to the DOE's core mission. Even in 
light of this Administration's focus on alternative energy, the DOE 
expends less than one-sixth of its budget on ``energy'' related 
programs--a trend that clearly will continue well into the future.
  Let me be the first to state that the proposals contained within this 
bill are not all of my own. The idea to eliminate the Department of 
Energy is not a new one--since its creation in 1978, experts have been 
clamoring to abolish this ``agency in search of a mission.'' This bill 
represents the comments and input of many who have worked in these 
fields for decades, but, I consider it a work in progress.
  Under the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1999, we dismantle 
the patchwork quilt of government initiatives--reassembling them into 
agencies better equipped to accomplish their basic goals; we refocus 
and increase federal funding towards basic research by eliminating 
corporate welfare; and, we abolish the bloated, duplicative upper 
management bureaucracy.
  First, we begin by eliminating Energy's cabinet-level status and 
establishing a three-year Resolution Agency

[[Page S4354]]

to oversee the transition. This is critical to ensuring progress 
continues to be made on the core programs.
  Under Title I, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is 
spun off to become an independent agency, as it was prior to the 
creation of the DOE. The division which oversees hearings and appeals 
is eliminated, with all pending cases transferred to the Department of 
Justice for resolution within 1 year. The functions of the Energy 
Information Administration are transferred to the Department of 
Interior with the instruction to privatize as many as possible. And 
with the exception of research being conducted by the DOE labs, basic 
science and energy research functions are transferred to Interior for 
determination on which are basic research, and which can be privatized. 
Those deemed as core research will be transferred to the National 
Science Foundation and reviewed by an independent commission. Those 
that are more commercial in nature will be subject to disposition 
recommendations by the Secretary of Interior.
  The main reasoning behind this is to ensure the original mission of 
the DOE--to develop this nation's energy independence--is carried out.
  With scarce taxpayer dollars currently competing against defense and 
cleanup programs within the DOE, it's no surprise that little progress 
has been made. However, by refocusing dollars into competitive 
alternative energy research, we will maximize the potential for areas 
such as solar, wind, biomass, etc.
  For states like Minnesota, where the desire for renewable energy 
technologies is high, growth in these areas could help fend off our 
growing dependence upon foreign oil while protecting our environment.
  Under Title II, the laboratory structure within the DOE is revamped.
  First, the three ``defense labs'' are transferred to the Defense 
Department. They include Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The 
remaining labs are studied by a ``Non-defense Energy Laboratory 
Commission''.
  This independent commission operates much like the Base Closure 
Commission and can recommend restructuring, privatization or a transfer 
to the DOD as alternatives to closure. Congress is granted fast-track 
authority to adopt the Commission's recommendations.
  Title III directs the General Accounting Office to assess an 
inventory of the Power Marketing Administration's assets, liabilities, 
etc. This inventory is aimed at ensuring fair treatment of current 
customers and a fair return to the taxpayers. All issues, including 
payments by current customers, must be included in the GAO audit.
  Petroleum Reserves are the focus of Title IV. The Naval Petroleum 
Reserve is targeted for immediate sale. Any of the reserves that are 
unable to be disposed of within the three-year window will be sold 
transitionally from the Interior Department.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is transferred to the Defense 
Department and an audit on value and maintenance costs is conducted by 
the GAO. Then, the DOD is charged with determining how much oil to 
maintain for national security purposes after reviewing the GAO report.
  Under Titles V and VI, all of the national security and environmental 
restoration/management activities are sent to the Department of 
Defense.
  Therefore, all defense-related activities are transferred back to 
Defense, but are placed in a new civilian controlled agency (the 
Defense Nuclear Programs Agency) to ensure budget firewalls and 
civilian control over sensitive activities such as arms control and 
nonproliferation activities.
  And the program which has received much criticism as of late, the 
Civilian Nuclear Waste Program, is transferred to the Corps of 
Engineers. This section dovetails legislation adopted by the Senate 
last Congress. A key element is that the interim storage site is 
designated at Nevada's Test Site Area 25.
  As I mentioned in the beginning of my statement, while I believe we 
should eliminate the Department as cabinet-level agency, I appreciate 
the difficulty involved in accomplishing this goal now and realize the 
opposition to this among many of my colleagues. For that reason, I 
believe it is important to point out that the reasons I have outlined 
for eliminating the Department have a dual purpose--they can also serve 
as reasons for improving the Department.
  Toward that end, I am willing to work with any Member of the Senate 
and House to improve, downsize, or restructure the DOE. I have long 
advocated positions which are consistent with my beliefs.
  I am an original co-sponsor of The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999--
legislation I believe is essential to fulfilling the DOE's promises to 
America's ratepayers and taxpayers. I have been a strong supporter of 
legislation and efforts which are aimed at improving our nation's 
energy security by promoting domestically produced alternative and 
renewable fuels. Those efforts have included support for extending the 
ethanol tax credit, including biodiesel as an alternative fuel under 
the Energy Policy Act, cosponsoring the Wind Energy Tax Credit, 
cosponsoring the Poultry Litter Tax Credit legislation, and 
cosponsoring legislation to reform the hydropower relicensing process.
  Briefly, I believe those efforts strengthen the original mission of 
the Department of Energy. My bottom line is, I want America's taxpayers 
to be assured they are receiving a proper return on their investment.
  The taxpayers need to have confidence they are receiving the services 
they deserve. Unfortunately, the record of the Department of Energy is 
evidence in part of our reliance upon foreign oil, by the nuclear waste 
program debacle and by the low ratings it receives under the Government 
Performance and Results Act, and is a record of failure the taxpayers 
should no longer be forced to bear.
  I patiently awaited the reforms and savings promised by the 
Department and its advocates, but the waiting continues and the savings 
never developed. As long as this is the case, I will continue to offer 
my legislation to dismantle the Department of Energy and shift its 
responsibilities elsewhere.
  I send the bill to the desk and ask it be referred to the proper 
committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received.
                                 ______