February 26, 2003

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, which I understand is the first of three hearings on the University of California’s and the Department of Energy’s management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. We have been holding hearings on the lab for many years, with many promises of reform, mostly unfulfilled. Today, we will hear more promises. The question that everyone, including the Department, must answer is whether they are too little, too late.

Over two years ago, the University promised the Congress and this Committee that it would make major changes in its management of its Laboratories, particularly in the area of property control. Appendix O was added to the University’s contract. A senior laboratory management council was established that was going to shape up the management. Security and safeguard efforts were going to be strengthened.

This management council did put the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory back on track, but the day-to-day management of Los Alamos – a billion-dollar business – appears to be worse than ever. There are still no basic controls. It is still operating with its "unique" procurement systems left over from the Manhattan Project days and outside of standard University operating practices.

I am particularly pleased that Glenn Walp, Steven Doran, and Jaret McDonald are testifying today. They each have compelling stories. For example, Mr. Walp was told when he went to Los Alamos that he was there to change things in security, particularly in the investigation of property theft. But when he tried to make changes that would hold Laboratory employees responsible for their criminal behavior, he was fired because his "customers" – the top management of the Laboratory – didn’t want the FBI or any other law enforcement agencies on its premises. This management tried to run the investigations themselves, and when the FBI said they had "screwed up," they blamed Mr. Walp, firing him and his colleague Mr. Doran. That was an outrage.

So now there is yet another management council and more promises that we will hear about today. Two management consulting firms are at Los Alamos as we speak. They will recommend more changes. But, once again, we cannot know if these are only promises to make us go away, or if they have real meaning and will actually be implemented.

And will people who in good faith try to make these changes be held in high repute in the Los Alamos community, or will they be seen as troublemakers and ostracized when the lights of the press fade? Already, one of our witnesses has been told that his actions may not be good for his career. This reactionary attitude must be rooted out. People who bring environmental, safety, procurement and property management, and fraud, waste and abuse to their managers’ attention should be rewarded.

The University of California must do better, or we must find someone who can. There are many universities, government agencies and businesses that can do research without letting their property management, procurement, travel and other systems be run like the proverbial cookie jar.

One last thing, Mr. Chairman. When Bill Richardson was Secretary of Energy, he was pilloried mercilessly, and very often unfairly, by some on this Committee and others for security and property control shortcomings at Los Alamos. The lab and the University were, frankly, largely let off the hook in Congressional hearings. The Department of Energy is ultimately responsible for what happens at Los Alamos, but I also hope everyone now understands the University of California and the lab management played the key role in these chronic management shortcomings. Now the University has one last chance to fix things.