[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19838-19840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a moment to 
alert my fellow Senators and others about an important development this 
evening which I think we categorize as another piece of good news, in 
addition to the adoption of the conference report on the tax reform 
just concluded by the Senate.
  Even though the conference report is in the process of being signed 
and has not yet been filed, I think I can advise my colleagues that 
later on this evening the House and Senate Armed Services Committees 
will have concluded their conference report, including the important 
revisions of the Department of Energy which follow generally along the 
lines of the so-called Rudman report recommendations and the amendment 
that Senators Murkowski and Domenici and I filed earlier in this 
session to reorganize the Department of Energy.
  The House and Senate had both passed versions of that reform of the 
Department of Energy. The matter was concluded today in the House-
Senate conference report of the Armed Services bill, and that is the 
vehicle by which the reorganization of the Department of Energy will 
occur.
  Just to recapitulate a little bit about how this came about, if you 
will recall, as a result of the espionage that resulted in the Chinese 
receiving significant secrets about nuclear weapons of the United 
States and the possibility that some of that information had come out 
of our National Laboratories, there was a great deal of study of the 
security at our National Labs and in the weapons program generally of 
the Department.
  The President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the so-
called PFIAB, headed by former Senator Warren Rudman, issued a report, 
really a scathing indictment of the Department of Energy, its past 
security policies or lack of security, and its inability to reorganize 
itself notwithstanding Secretary Richardson's efforts to begin to 
reorganize the Department. What it said was the Department of Energy 
was incapable of reorganizing itself. They reiterated a long list of 
things which the Department had failed to do, which it had failed to 
put into place, and described the whole situation at the Department as 
such that it was impossible to expect them to be able to do this on 
their own.
  Therefore, the Rudman commission recommended strongly the Congress do 
this reorganization by legislation. That is when Senators Domenici, 
Murkowski and I reoriented our amendment to follow closely the Rudman 
commission recommendations and introduced that as an amendment before 
this body.
  It was originally introduced to the Armed Services bill. It was later 
put on the Intelligence bill instead. But the Armed Services Committee 
took the amendment and has worked it now in the conference committee, 
as I said. As a result of their agreement tonight, there will be a 
reorganization of the Department, assuming the President signs the 
Defense authorization bill, which I am sure he would want to do.
  Reorganization was agreed to in principle by Secretary Richardson, 
although there were many things he wanted to change in the detail of 
it. But what it will do in a nutshell is to establish within the 
Department of Energy a semiautonomous agency that will have the 
accountability and the responsibility for managing our nuclear weapons 
and complex including the National Laboratories. It will be headed by a 
specific person, an Under Secretary, who will be responsible to the 
Secretary directly and to a Deputy Secretary if the Secretary so 
desires.
  While, of course, the Secretary of Energy remains in general control 
of all of his Department, including the semiautonomous agency, on a 
day-to-day basis it is anticipated this agency will be operated by the 
Under Secretary, who is responsible for its functions. It will involve 
security, intelligence, counterintelligence, all of the different 
weapons, the Navy nuclear program and the other things at the 
laboratory that relate to our nuclear weapons. To a large extent it 
will remove the influences of other parts of the Department of Energy 
over the nuclear weapons program.
  One of the things the Rudman commission found was that there were too 
many people with their fingers in the pie; that the laboratories and 
the weapons program people were having to get too many sign-offs from 
too many other people around the Department to work efficiently and 
effectively. The input of the field offices made it very difficult to 
know who was responsible, and it was hard to find out in some cases who 
you even had to get sign-offs from in order to get anything done. They 
said, in effect, it was no wonder the left hand didn't know what the 
right hand was doing and that is why they recommended a very clear 
chain of command, a very clear line of authority with accountability 
and responsibility with one person at the top and a bunch of people 
answerable to him and only him--as well as the Secretary, of course.
  The net result of that should be we will have a much tighter 
organization run much more efficiently. We will not have the influences 
of these other disparate people within the Department. Security can be 
carefully monitored and controlled and, in fact, maintained and in some 
cases even established. Therefore, the security of the nuclear weapons 
program generally and the laboratory specifically can be enhanced and 
we will not have the kind of espionage problems we have had in the 
past.
  That is a summary of the problem, the recommendation of the Rudman 
report, the recommendations Senators Domenici, Murkowski, and I 
introduced, and the action of the House-Senate Armed Services Committee 
today in approving this particular plan.
  I thank some people specifically involved in developing this. In 
addition, of course, to Senator Domenici, who was the primary mover 
behind this idea, and Senator Rudman and the members of his panel; 
Senator Murkowski added a great deal as did Senator Shelby, the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Senator Warner, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House.
  Specifically, I thank Senator Warner for his patience for working 
with a lot of people who had different ideas about what ought to be 
done, bringing this to a near successful conclusion, from my point of 
view, and which will enable us to move forward very quickly with this 
reorganization.
  There are also some special staff people who, as always, make these 
things happen. In the Senate, the staffs of Senators Domenici and 
Murkowski; Alex Flint, Howard Useem, and John Rood did a great deal of 
work on this and should be complimented. Two Members of the House of 
Representatives, who were very active in making this work, Congressman 
Duncan Hunter and Congressman Mac Thornberry were really the key movers 
and shakers on this.
  So as we get ready to leave here this evening, I think it is 
important for us to acknowledge the work of these people and the 
leadership of Senator Warner and the conclusion which I hope can soon 
be announced, as the successful completion of the conference, at least 
in this one important area, making a great stride toward ensuring the 
security of our weapons programs and our National Laboratories.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished 
colleague, together with Senators Domenici and Murkowski and their 
respective staffs. Indeed, the staff of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the House Armed Services Committee all collaborated to 
try to make this a constructive, constitutional, and balanced approach.
  But if I could ask the Senator a question, so those persons who have 
not had

[[Page 19839]]

the opportunity to follow as closely as he the progress of this 
legislation, does the Senator think the product created by the House-
Senate conference represents a piece of legislation that is stronger, 
in terms of creating this concept of a separate entity within the DOD, 
than was the bill passed by the Senate at 93-1?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think it is. I think the Senate passed a 
good bill almost unanimously. The House of Representatives had a 
somewhat different approach. I am sure they considered it an even 
stronger bill. As the chairman knows better than any of us, compromise 
is required in that kind of situation. I think each body moved somewhat 
toward the other. So inevitably I think the product, as good as it was 
out of the Senate, is even strengthened by some of the ideas that came 
out of the House of Representatives.
  I might ask the chairman a question, if I could.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. KYL. One of the things that animated us in the Senate was the 
need to get on with this project, get the Department reorganized, and 
to begin dealing quickly with these security problems so we did not 
have any more problems. Reorganization of a Department, obviously, will 
take a lot of work and some time. Of course, time will be required to 
appoint the various officials who will be running it.
  But I ask the chairman this, just to get his ideas. There are 
different dates by which things are required to be done under the 
legislation. What is our intent with respect to moving this legislation 
forward and accomplishing its objectives as soon as is possible?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to use an old naval phrase, ``with all 
deliberate speed.''
  I know the Senator's concern about the insertion of a date in March 
with regard to the final achievement by, presumably, the current 
Secretary; if Secretary Richardson will carry this through. Certain 
sections, however, of this legislation are quite clear that he should 
start the day after the President, hopefully, affixes his signature to 
this piece of legislation.
  It is a phasing process. We looked at the date of March, and it 
should not, in my judgment, be interpreted as any lack of resolve by 
the Congress. To the contrary, it is a recognition that a major 
reorganization of this proportion will require a period of time within 
which to achieve it.
  The opposite side of the argument of those who say we should not have 
had that date would be, if you did not put in a recognition that it 
would take time, then presumably 1 week after the President affixes his 
signature, we could haul the Secretary of Energy up here and say: You 
haven't achieved this in 1 week's time, 2 week's time or 30 days' time.
  We had to strike a balance. I know that has been of great concern to 
my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. KYL. If I may add, I know the chairman and I share the same view 
that ``all deliberate speed'' means we need to get about it as soon as 
we can. I ask the chairman this: Is that more to be considered as a 
deadline for having achieved this rather than a time to begin? Time to 
begin, of course, when the President affixes his signature.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, certainly it is to be viewed the time 
within which to be completed. Given the certain constructive steps the 
current Secretary, Secretary Richardson, has taken, I presume he will 
have achieved the reorganization in a time shorter than that. But I 
must say to my colleague, you cannot satisfy everybody.
  This is my 21st year on the Armed Services Committee, and as we file 
tonight the signatures of those members of the respective committees, 
House and Senate, who have approved the conference report, it is my 
understanding that no Democrat member of the Armed Services Committee 
in the Senate will be signatory. That comes as a personal 
disappointment to me as chairman in my first year.
  I met with the committee this afternoon. There was representation of 
probably seven or eight members on the Democrat side. The ranking 
member let me know beforehand of his concern, and I understood him 
throughout. We tried as best we could to work with the minority on our 
committee on this issue, as we do all issues. It is a matter of deep 
regret that we were not able to reconcile the differences that 
apparently were very significant between the Democrat approach to this 
and the Republican majority approach.
  I will accept the consequences. I am the captain of this ship now, 
and I accept full accountability. I do note, however, that my 
understanding is, as of this hour, most, if not all, the Democrat 
Members of the House have signed, of course, the identical conference 
report.
  Mr. KYL. If I may interrupt for one other comment, I thank the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his courtesies in allowing 
three Senators who are not members of the committee--Senators Domenici, 
Murkowski, and myself--to be significantly involved in discussing this 
and proposing suggestions and passing on suggestions that came from the 
other body. That is a good example of how people in different 
committees--in my case, the Intelligence Committee--working across 
jurisdictional lines can help shape the legislation. I personally 
appreciate that very much.
  I will add this with respect to our friends on the other side of the 
aisle. I do not know if I can assign a percentage to it, but it still 
seems to me that about 90 percent of this bill is the Senate bill we 
passed. I do not know of a single concept that deviates from the 
concepts within the Senate bill, even though some of the language is 
different.
  I think we protected the Senate legislative concepts very well, and I 
hope that in the end our Democratic colleagues will continue to work 
with us and certainly with Secretary Richardson to implement the 
legislation.
  I know as we go forward there are going to be hearings in different 
committees. The chairman's committee will have primary jurisdiction, I 
understand, and we will be able to continue to work on this because 
something as significant as the reorganization of the Department is not 
going to be done in one fell swoop. It will have a lot of fits and 
starts and oversight and ways of working together. I am sure with the 
chairman's leadership we will all be able to make this work in the way 
we intend.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, one last observation, if the Senator will 
remain for a moment, and that is, I think we should acknowledge in this 
Record tonight the work of the Intelligence Committee, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, the Energy Committee, and the Armed Services 
Committee. There were four committees that worked diligently.
  Our distinguished majority leader would have periodic meetings of the 
chairmen, and others such as yourself, who had an interest. Senator 
Domenici attended all of those meetings. On this side of the aisle, 
from our top leadership down through the committee chairmen and others, 
we worked together as a team to address this national, if not 
international, crisis of the leakage of information from these 
magnificent laboratories. Our national security is absolutely dependent 
on their work product and the security of that work product today and 
tomorrow and for the indefinite future.
  I thank all chairmen. They had a number of hearings. My estimate is 
that we in the Senate, among the four committees, must have had 25 
hearings on this subject.
  Mr. KYL. May I add one more thing? I know it sounds like a 
recapitulation, but when the Senator mentioned Senator Domenici and the 
fine work our National Laboratories do, I was moved to think about how 
many times during these negotiations Senator Domenici, who represents 
two of those laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos, made absolutely sure 
that the work of those laboratories was well understood by everyone and 
appreciated by everyone. He was very zealous in assuring that nothing 
in the legislation would ever detract from their operation or their 
success, that they could reach out and engage in new missions, that 
they would be protected in terms of environmental protection and 
funding.

[[Page 19840]]

  He was a zealous advocate for those laboratories and all the great 
work they can do. His leadership in that regard is one of the reasons 
we were able to achieve such a balanced piece of legislation.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I also observe, 
yes, but he was very objective about the seriousness of this problem. 
Throughout his deliberations, whether in Senator Lott's office or the 
hearings or in our consultations together, he was always very 
objective, and he put national interests first at every step. So the 
Senator is correct.
  I conclude with one sentence to my friend. I do not think if we 
recalled William Shakespeare from the grave that this provision on 
reorganization could have been written on the Department of Energy to 
satisfy everyone. That is the reason I have such deep regret about my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Many times we consulted them 
right down to the word and the comma and the like. We just did the very 
best we could, and I am proud of the work our committee did. I pay 
tribute to the respective staffs and my colleagues who worked on it.
  We are fully accountable for the effectiveness, and we, as a 
committee, perhaps with other committees, will hold a hearing very 
early next fall to determine the progress, assuming this is signed, 
within a period of, say, 2 months after the President's signature is 
affixed.
  I thank my distinguished colleague.

                          ____________________