June 23, 2000
The Honorable Tom Bliley
Chairman
Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Once again, I am in receipt of a letter from you on DOE security issues that suffers
from significant errors and omissions. A few observations follow:
1. My comments that this security problem "is not only related to the behavior of
the Department of Energy, but very frankly, also to the behavior of the contractors"
and that "[t]he administration of these facilities has been a source of constant
aggravation to everybody back to General Grove, who began the whole project" were, I
thought, clear enough for anyone to understand. Apparently I was in error.
2. The Committee, as you know, had a major, ongoing inquiry into these matters, with
varying levels of activity, since the early 1980s. That work ceased in January 1995, with
the changeover in Congress, as I noted in my televised remarks. You chose to terminate the
very able and experienced Republican staffer involved in the inquiry, who had hoped to
continue the Subcommittee’s work on safeguards and security, and on the underlying
problem of DOE contractor management.
3. Your letter ignores the significant General Accounting Office reports issued in late
1992 concerning security deficiencies at DOE weapons facilities, and safeguards and
security planning at DOE facilities, and the standard follow-up work with a Department
that takes place after such reports. I suggest your staff consider following up to see
whether an agency is addressing issues raised in the GAO reports you request.
4. I am surprised that you did not realize that our extensive bipartisan work during
1993-1994 on reform of DOE’s contractor management went to the heart of DOE’s
ability to manage its weapons facility contracts, and included both direct and indirect
attention to security issues. The August 1994 major GAO report on the University of
California’s DOE contracts, including Los Alamos, noted serious management
deficiencies which had led to a variety of problems, including security failings. In one
instance, a DOE official acknowledged that "the contract terms could be interpreted
broadly as limiting DOE’s ability to conduct [surprise] inspections." (I also
briefly noted the safeguards and security implications of our contractor management work
in the Subcommittee hearings of February 17 and December 1, 1993.) The point is simple: we
continued our vigorous oversight of DOE contractors, and safeguards and security remained
a significant component of that work.
5. Your correspondence to date on this matter ignores Mr. Markey’s request in
November 1997 to Chairman Barton to recommence Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearings in this area after a three-year hiatus. It also ignores the
rejection of the written recommendations by an investigator on your staff to hold hearings
on this matter in 1997. Apparently, the ill-fated effort to investigate Molten Metal and
Peter Knight took precedence at that time, despite what your letter says is your great
concern about what took place in the two years prior to your chairmanship.
6. Secretary O’Leary initiated the Fundamental Classification Policy Review Group
in 1995, during your tenure as chairman, and the report was issued in October 1997. This
group found that higher levels of security should be maintained around the more sensitive
material. I am not aware that the Committee addressed this issue at that time.
Finally, if a fraction of the time concocting these two silly letters to me was spent
conducting real oversight over the DOE’s nuclear weapons complex, the Committee might
uncover a transgression or two before the press does. While I am flattered that you or
your staff enjoy watching me on morning talk shows, the time might be better spent
visiting DOE’s facilities and digging to determine what security and other problems
are continuing.
I look forward to working with you on this matter over the next several months, and
with others on a more bipartisan and constructive basis in the next Congress.
With every good wish.
Sincerely,
JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER
