I MIGHT ADMINISTER REESE' RESPONSIBILITY IN THE LINE OF COMMAND
           IS THE LAB DIRECTORS REPORT DIRECTLY TO MR. REESE. NOW, MR.
           REESE SAID AND I QUOTE, -- QUOTE -- "YOU MAY RECALL AT PREVIOUS
           HEARINGS, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU NOTICED ME IN THE AUDIENCE AND YOU
           ASKED FOR ME OPINION AS TO WHO OR WHAT WAS TO BLAME FOR THE
           SECURITY ISSUES AT THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES. I RESPONDED THAT

           I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD FIND ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL TO BLAME. ANY
           ONE INDIVIDUAL TO BLAME. BUT THAT THERE WERE ORGANIZATIONAL
           STRUCTURES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THAT WERE SO FLAWED THAT
           SECURITY LAPSES ARE ALMOST INEVITABLE." NOW, THIS IS THE
           GENTLEMAN, THE HEADS OF THE LABS REPORT TO. AND HE SAYS THAT
           YOU CAN'T FIND ANY INDIVIDUAL TO BLAME. THE ORGANIZATIONAL
           STRUCTURE WAS SO FLAWED THAT SECURITY LAPSE WERE IN HE HAVE
           TABLE. THEN MR. REESE WENT ON TO SAY AND I QUOTE, -- QUOTE --

           "THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
           IS SIMPLY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS TOO MANY DESPERATE
           MISSIONS TO BE MANAGED EFFECTIVELY AS A COHESIVE ORGANIZATION.
           THE PRICE OF GASOLINE, REFRIGERATORS STANDARDS, QUIRKS NUCLEAR
           CLEANUP, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, JUST DON'T COME TOGETHER NATURALLY.
           BECAUSE OF ALL THIS MULTILAYERED CROSS-CUTTING, THERE IS NO ONE
           ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE OPERATION OF ANY PART OF THE ORGANIZATION,

           EXCEPT THE SECRETARY, AND NO SECRETARY HAS THE TIME TO LEAD THE
           WHOLE THING EFFECTIVELY. BY SETTING UP A SEMI-AUTONOMOUS
           AGENCY, MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS WILL GO AWAY. MR. PRESIDENT, IN
           SHORT, IF YOU WANT ESPIONAGE TO CONTINUE AT THE LABORATORIES
           AND MAINTAIN THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT CAN OCCUR, THEN STICK
           WITH THE PRESENT SYSTEM. BUT IF YOU, LIKE ME, WANT TO STOP THIS
           ATMOSPHERE WHERE ESPIONAGE CAN FLOURISH, I THINK YOU SHOULD
           VOTE FOR THE MOTION AND INVOKE CLOTURE FOR THE AMENDMENT. NOW,

           WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE, MADAM PRESIDENT, IS A SITUATION WHERE I
           THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT WE IDENTIFY WHERE THE DIFFERENCES
           ARE BETWEEN THE SECRETARY, SENATOR KYL, SENATOR DOMENICI,
           SENATOR KYL AND SENATOR KERREY IN OUR AMENDMENT, BECAUSE WHAT
           WE DO IS CREATE A SINGLE SEMI-AUTONOMOUS AGENCY THAT REPORTS
           DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY. THE NEW UNDERSECRETARY FOR
           NUCLEAR STEWARDSHIP WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH SETTING POLICY

           AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY SUBJECT TO THE OVERALL SUPERVISION
           AND DIRECT CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY.
           
           I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR: SUBJECT TO THE OVERALL SUPERVISION
           AND DIRECT CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY. NOW, THAT'S NOT
           EVIDENTLY WHAT THE SECRETARY WANTS. THE SECRETARY IS WILLING TO
           ALLOW THE NEW UNDERSECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR STEWARDSHIP TO
           IMPLEMENT POLICY BUT NOT SET POLICY. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
           IMPLEMENTING AND SETTING. MORE SIGNIFICANTLY THE SECRETARY
           WANTS TO ALLOW ANY PART -- ANY PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

           TO SET THE POLICIES THAT THE NEW UNDERSECRETARY WOULD HAVE TO
           FOLLOW. SO SOMEBODY ELSE IS SETTING THEM. THE SECRETARY'S
           PROPOSAL WOULD VIOLATE OUR FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT AND THAT IS
           CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE LINES OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY.
           IN OTHER WORDS, A DIRECT CHAIN OF COMMAND. WE HAVE BEEN
           DISCUSSING OUR DIFFERENCES BUT SO FAR WE SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO
           RESOLVE THEM. THERE IS ONE OTHER THING I WANT TMENTION THAT WAS

           SAID THE OTHER DAY THAT RELATES TO THIS MATTER UNDER
           DISCUSSION. TWO CURRENT NUCLEAR WEAPONS LAB DIRECTORS AND ONE
           FORMER LAB DIRECTOR SAID THAT AT OUR HEARING THAT WHILE THEY
           COULD REPORT THEIR PROBLEMS AND ISSUES TO MR. REESE, WHO IS
           THERE SUPERVISOR, THAT MR. REESE HAS NO CLEAR LINE OF AUTHORITY
           TO PASS THOSE UP THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND TO THE SECRETARY.
           SO HERE YOU HAVE IT. THIS, MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK

           SUBSTANTIATES THE JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR LANGUAGE. HERE IS THE
           GENTLEMAN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO HAVE THE INPUT FROM THE LAB
           DIRECTORS REPORT TO HIM, THE THREE LABS, LIVERMORE, SANDIA,
           LOSS ALAMOS, UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND CHAIN OF COMMAND
           IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, HAS NO CLEAR LINE OF AUTHORITY TO
           PASS THOSE MATTERS UP THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND TO THE

           SECRETARY. SO HERE YOU HAVE THE PERSON THAT'S RESPONSIBLE TO
           GET THE INFORMATION FROM THE LAB DIRECTORS, BUT THERE IS NO
           PROVISION, NO REQUIREMENT, NO LINE COMMAND UP TO THE SECRETARY
           SO THAT POLICY MATTERS CAN BE ADDRESSED. THAT ONE OBSERVATION
           BY THESE THREE LAB DIRECTORS ILLUSTRATES THE PROBLEM WITHIN THE
           DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIX WITH THIS
           LEGISLATION. AS IT STANDS TODAY, THERE IS NO CLEAR LINES OF
           AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY. RIGHT NOW SHALL EVERYBODY IS IN
           CHARGE, BUT NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE. I GUESS IT IS FAIR TO SAY

           THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MISSING LINKS, IF YOU WILL, IN THE
           D.O.E.'S KHAIVEN COMMAND AND AUTHORITY. THE PURPOSE OF THE
           AMENDMENT IS TO FIX THAT PROBLEM. YOU KNOW, I OFTEN THINK BACK
           AT THE MILITARY CONCEPT, A SHIP AT SEA. SOMEONE IS IN CHARGE OF
           THE CON. IN OTHER WORDS, SOMEBODY IS UNDER THE -- THE SHIP IS
           UNDER DIRECTION OF SHIP IN CHARGE. HE HAS THE CON. THERE IS NO
           QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY IS, THE CO THE COMMAND

           OF THE SHIP IS TAKEN OVER BY PERSON E. ANOTHER PERSON AND THAT
           PERSON ACCEPTS THE RESPONSIBILITY. BUT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
           ENERGY, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE CLEAR LINES OF AUTHORITY THAT WOULD
           SET ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT IS THE
           JUSTIFICATION, MADAM PRESIDENT, FOR THE AMENDMENT THAT IS
           PENDING BEFORE THIS BODY TODAY. NOW, WHAT -- WHAT'S THE
           NECESSITY?
           IS THIS THING BROKE TO THE POINT WHERE IT MANDATES THAT THE
           SENATE TAKE ACTION?

           WELL, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY YES.
           THE INEPTNESS, BUNGLING, PURE MISMANAGEMENT AT ALL LEVELS,
           THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT THIS AGENCY. THE
           DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NEVER TOOK THE MOST BASIC PRECAUTION TOSS
           GUARD AGAINST THE THEFT OF THE NUCLEAR SECRETS. THE F.B.I.
           CONDUCTED FEEBLE VERSIONS. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LED BY
           ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO VIRTUALLY IGNORED REQUESTS FOR LAWRENCE
           TO SEARCH WEN HO LEE COMPUTERS HERE WHAT WE HAVE IS THE ONE OF

           THE WORSE CASES IN OUR NATION OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BEING
           JEOPARDIZED. NOW, I HAVE HELD ABOUT 12 HEARINGS AS CHAIRMAN OF
           THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE ON THESE MATTERS AND
           THREE IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES WERE MADE BY MY COMMITTEES. FIRST,
           THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE F.B.I. BUNGLED THE COMPUTER
           WAIVER ISSUE. AND I HAVE A CHART HERE BECAUSE THE LAB
           DIRECTORS, THE ATTORNEYS, THE DIRECTORS OF

           COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE, ALL AGREED THAT THE D.O.E. HAD THE
           AUTHORITY TO SEARCH LEE'S COMPUTER BECAUSE LEE SIGNED A WAIVER.
           WELL, THIS IS THE WAIVER. THIS IS THE WAIVER, A COPY OF THE
           WAIVER THAT ACTUALLY WEN HO LEE SIGNED DATED APRIL 19, 1995. IT
           READS AS FOLLOWING. "WARNING TO PROTECT THE LAN SYSTEMS FROM
           UNAUTHORIZED USE AND TO ENSURE THAT THE SYSTEMS ARE FUNCTIONING
           PROPERLY, ACTIVITIES ON THESE SIP TOLLS ARE MONITORED AND
           RECORDED AND SUBJECT TO AUDIT. ANY OUN AUTHORIZED ACCESS OR USE

           OF THIS IS PROHIBITED AND COULD BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL
           PENALTY." THIS IS THE PART THAT WEN HO LEE SIGNED. I UNDERSTAND
           AND AGREE TO FOLLOW THESE RULES IN MY USE OF THE LAW I ASSUME
           FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SECURITY OF I UNDERSTAND THAT
           VIOLATIONS MAY BE REPORT TODAY MY SUPERVISOR OR THAT I MAY BE
           DENIED ACCESS AND I MAY RECEIVE SECURITY INFRACTION FOR A
           VIOLATION OF THESE RULES." NOW THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE
           F.B.I. CLAIMED THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TOLD HIM THERE WAS NO

           WAIVER, NO SUCH WAIVER EXISTED. THE F.B.I. THEN WRONGLY ASSUMED
           THAT THEY NEEDED A WARRANT TO SEARCH. WHAT'S THE RESULT OF THIS INEPT COMMUNICATION?
           WELL LEE'S COMPUTER COULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED, BUT INSTEAD WAS
           NOT SEARCHED FOR SOME THREE YEARS. AND WHAT THE COMPUTER WAS
           FINALLY SEARCHED, THEY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT WEN HO LEE HAD
           DOWN LOADED LEGACY CODES TO AN UNCLASSIFIED COMPUTER. THE
           FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THAT ONE WAS LOOKING AT THE BIK PICTURE.
           CERTAINLY PROTECTING SECURITIES OUTWEIGHS THE FEEBLE ATTEMPTS

           MADE TO GET A POSSIBLE CONVICTION. WHAT WE HAVE HERE, MADAM
           PRESIDENT, IS ONE, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DID NOT KNOW THAT
           WEN HOLEE HAD SIGNED A WAIVER. IT COULDN'T FIND IT IN HIS
           PERSONNEL BECAUSE HIS PERSONNEL FILE HAD BEEN MISLAID. NOW, HAD
           THEY KNOWN THAT, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, THEY COULD HAVE
           MONITORED HIS COMPUTER. INSTEAD, THE F.B.I. SAID NO, THEY WERE
           DOING AN INVESTIGATION, AND SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A WAIVER,
           HIS COMPUTER WAS NOT MONITORED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

           YET, THEY FOUND LATER THE WAIVER EXISTED AS EVIDENCED BY THE
           POSTER THAT I JUST SHOWED IN EVIDENCE. NOW THE F.B.I. AND THE
           DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEXT BUNGLED THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE
           WARRANT OR FISA AS EVIDENCED BY CHART TWO THE F.B.I. NOT ONCE,
           NOT TWICE, BUT THREE TIMES REQUESTED WARRANTS FROM THE
           DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. THIS IS CHART TWO. THIS IS THE FISA

           REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THE F.B.I., THE DEPARTMENT OF
           JUSTICE AND THE FISA WARRANT. THE FIRST TIME NOTRA TRULOCK
           INFORMS THE F.B.I. THE F.B.I. REQUEST WAS MADE TO JERALD
           SCHROEDER, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE POLICY AND
           REVIEW, IT WAS REJECTED. HERE IS THE REJECTION. HERE IS THE
           SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THE FIRST TIME, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAD
           THE SEQUENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THE F.B.I. AND

           DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROCEEDING TO AUTHORIZE A FISA WARRANT TO
           INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGED COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE AND ESPIONAGE
           CHARGES THAT WERE ALLEGED AGAINST WEN HO LEE. THE DEPARTMENT OF
           JUSTICE, THE SECOND TIME, NOTRA TRUE LOCK AND OTHERS CONTINUE
           TO PRODUCT F.B.I.'S INVESTIGATION OF WEN HOE LEE. F.B.I.
           REQUEST MADE BY JOB LEWIS, THEN IT WENT TO JERALD SLOLDER AND

           AGAIN IT WAS REJECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE SECOND
           TIME BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THEN THE LAST TIME, MR.
           LEWIS, RIGHT UP THERE IN THE HIERARCHY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
           THE F.B.I., NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, HE FEELS SO FRUSTRATED
           THAT AS DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, HE MAKES A PERSONAL PLEA OF
           THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JANUARY EAT RENO. AGAIN, NOTRA TRULOCK
           CONTINUE TO PRODUCT THE F.B.I., JOHN LEWIS MAKES A PERSONAL

           REQUEST TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BECAUSE HE FEELS SO STRONGLY
           THAT THERE IS JUSTIFICATION TO AUTHORIZE THIS INVESTIGATION.
           BUT THE PERSONAL APPEAL FALLS ON DEAF EARS. WHY WAS IT REJECTED?
           WHAT HAPPENED?
           WELL, WE TONIGHT NOVEMBER. NOTHING HAPPENED. BUT WE DO KNOW THE
           ATTORNEY GENERAL IGNORED TWO PLEAS FOR HELP. NOTRA TRULOCK,
           BRIEFED JANET RENO IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THE LEAK IN 1997. JOHN

           LEWIS AS I INDICATED PERSONALLY PLED TO JANET RENO TO APPROVE E
           F.B.I. REQUEST TO SEARCH LEE IN 1997. WHY DID ATTORNEY GENERAL
           JANET RENO IGNORE TWO PLEAS FROM TOP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS?
           WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW PAUSE THERE IS A GREAT RELUCTANCE
           TO PROVIDE THE COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION WITH THAT
           INFORMATION. I AM PERSONALLY DISAPPOINTED IN THE F.B.I. AND
           DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY. PROBABLY 90%

           OF WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND IN CLOSED SESSIONS IS NOT REALLY
           CLASSIFIED IN MY OPINION. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR HERE IS
           ACCOUNTABILITY. WE IN THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE
           INTEND TO CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY THOSE PERSONS WHOSE INACTION LED
           TO ONE OF THE MOST POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC LOSSES IN OUR
           NATIONAL SECURITY HISTORY. AND NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE
           THEY SEEM TO WANT TO HIDE BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN OF FINGER

           POINTING OR IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IT IS SIMPLY AN
           UNCONSCIONABLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, MADAM PRESIDENT. NOW,
           FINALLY, AS WE ADDRESS A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS THAT MAY CAN
           COME UP IN THE DEBATE THAT I THINK DESERVE CONSIDERATION IS WHY
           CREATE ONE SEMI-AUTONOMOUS AGENCY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
           ENERGY?

           WE ARE CREATING A HYBRID HERE THAT HAS NO OTHER IDENTIFIABLE
           COMPARISON. WELL LET ME PUT THAT MYTH TO REST. THERE ARE OTHER
           SEMI-AUTONOMOUS AGENCIES THAT FUNCTION EXTREMELY WELL, AND
           THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS
           BEEN LAID DOWN. LET'S LOOK AT THREE OF THOSE
{END: 1999/07/19 TIME: 16-30 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}