|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| UNDER FIRE | |
 June 21, 2000  |
|
|
Two senators discuss Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's testimony before the Senate Arms Services Committee and the state of national security.
|
|
Senator Shelby, you have picked no knits on this. You are very clear exactly what you think should happen to Secretary Richardson. Did anything he said to you today about the FBI's findings in this investigation or anything about the actions he has taken against the workers, did any of those things change your mine about whether he should resign?
GWEN IFILL: Senator Bryan, these kinds of calls for resignation often fall along party lines. But to my hearing today, I was struck how much Democrats were as harsh in their criticism of Secretary Richardson as Republicans were. Who do you think should pay the price for the mistakes that were made at Los Alamos?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| A big mistake, or a cover-up? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GWEN IFILL: Well, Senator Bryan, let me back up for a second and lapse into the vernacular for a moment. Was this mistake or whatever you want to call it -- was it a cover-up or was it a screw-up?
GWEN IFILL: You're not satisfied when Secretary Richardson said to you today that there was no espionage? SEN. RICHARD BRYAN: We cannot conclude that. The state of the record does not indicate there was espionage but we certainly cannot conclude that there was not.
GWEN IFILL: Senator Shelby, there have been missing laptops at the State Department; there was the Wen Ho Lee case in which secure files were copied into non-secure computers. Even the CIA - former CIA director -- took home some secured files onto an unsecured computer. Are you concerned that what you are examining here is an overall lack of interest in security matters involving this administration, not just this department? SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: In all fairness, the labs have had a long history -- Los Alamos particularly -- of misdealing and espionage and everything else. This goes way back into the Manhattan Project. So, let's exclude the labs for just a moment for conversation. The other part you mentioned, that is, the mishandling of information by John Deutsche, the director, the lack of security at the State Department, we can go on and on. I believe those instances show a lack of concern for classified -- handling classified information. GWEN IFILL: Senator Bryan, how about that? Senator Inhoffe, among others on the Committee today suggested that the person -- where this buck should be heading is the White House, at the White House, not Secretary Richardson.
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: I would just like to add this tonight because a lot of us are concerned about our labs -- how classified information, very vital secrets are handled. For the most part, most of the people that work in our labs overwhelming - overwhelming majority are very patriotic, very diligent, handle things in a proper way. There's always a few-- and there always will be -- that would do damage to their own country. That's what we've got to root out. How we do it, I'm not sure. But it can be done. But the tone and the policy has got to change. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Security in the bureaucracy | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GWEN IFILL: Last year, Senator Shelby, a special intelligence panel appointed by the president said that the Energy Department is a dysfunctional bureaucracy incapable of reforming itself. Do you agree with that?
SEN. RICHARD BRYAN: I agree with Senator Shelby. I think that we need to review whether or not the Energy Department ought to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the labs. I think that's an open question, one that will not be resolved by this Congress but one I think it's an appropriate one to review in the next Congress. GWEN IFILL: Would you suggest perhaps, Senator Bryan, moving the authority for these labs back to the Pentagon where it used to be?
GWEN IFILL: Senator Shelby, Secretary Richardson has said in answer to questions that he's trying to find the right balance between science and security. What is that balance?
GWEN IFILL: Senator Bryan, what do you think about that?
GWEN IFILL: Senators Shelby and Bryan, thank you both very much. SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: Thank you. SEN. RICHARD BRYAN: Thank you very much. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
GWEN
IFILL: Joining me now to discuss security at Los Alamos, and Secretary
Bill Richardson's future, are two senators from the Select Committee
on Intelligence: Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, chairman of the
committee; and Democrat Richard Bryan of Nevada.
SEN.
RICHARD SHELBY: Absolutely not. I think Secretary Richardson has had
a great opportunity; he was put on alert over a year ago because of
the activities of possible espionage and missing information at Los
Alamos. He says what he did about that, but nevertheless we're where
we are today, not a lot has changed. He's accountable. He's responsible.
He has to meet that accountability. Even today in the closed hearing
and the hearing this morning I'm more disturbed than I was when the
day began, and I think for good reasons.
SEN.
RICHARD BRYAN: Well, clearly, Secretary Richardson is the individual
who is in charge of the agency and he bears responsibility. I think
it's also fair to say that he's dealing with a culture there that has
been very difficult to deal with. It's almost beyond comprehension that
for a period of 24 days after these hard drives disappeared that not
even the lab director, who was on site, is notified. In my judgment
clearly those individuals -- and that's what Senator Levin on an earlier
part of the broadcast was speaking to -- those individuals who failed
to notify in a timely fashion as required should, in my judgment, be
terminated. I'm very harsh on the security czar. A year ago we brought
him in. We thought he was going to be an Ivan the Terrible to tighten
up procedures. These procedures that exist at the X-division with respect
to access to this vault require no log-in, no log-out. People can remove
secret information without recording that. That's an indefensible procedure
and one that perhaps potentially compromised information on these hard
drives which would be extraordinarily useful to terrorists. So I think
clearly there are some responsibility there. I think the ultimate question
is whether or not the secretary takes the appropriate response, and
if he does so, I think he has discharged his responsibility. 
SEN.
RICHARD BRYAN: I'm not sure that we know the answer. We were told today,
for example, by Dr. Browne that when he confronted his subordinates
-- Dr. Browne is the lab director. "Why didn't you notify me for
a period of 24 days?" Nobody said a word. They said, "Look,
I'll be in my office. Anybody that wants to meet with me privately can
do so." There is a culture there in which the scientific community,
people who are well-intentioned, very capable, able people, don't have
a great regard for the security interest. And so there's been this culture
clash that's existed for years. I suspect that's part of it. But in
response to your question, we really do not know whether this information
has been compromised. We do not know whether espionage is involved.
That's something that all of us are hopeful that the FBI investigation
will help us reach some conclusions. 
SEN.
RICHARD BRYAN: Let me say I don't think, you know, partisan observations
by, you know, Senator... should control the situation here. It strikes
me that as Senator Shelby has pointed out, the labs have had a long
history of these problems. I think it's fair to say that there are security
problems in other agencies. I don't think this is isolated just at one
lab. I believe that what occurred at the end of the Cold War, a decision
was made in the early 1990s to downgrade some of the security procedures.
That was a mistake. We should not have done that. We should correct
that now. I've called for a comprehensive review of security procedures,
not just with respect to the labs but with respect to all agencies of
government that deal with classified information. 
SEN.
RICHARD SHELBY: Well, I'm beginning to believe that. I was hoping that
wouldn't be true then. We've given it a year and I don't think it's
improved very much. And that's why there's been proposals out here to
perhaps look at an independent agency, such as we have NASA, because
our vital secrets dealing with our labs and everything are too important
to just be treated in a cavalier way.
SEN.
RICHARD BRYAN: Well, let me just say that we have information that some
of the improvements that were recommended in terms of tightening security
were resisted by the Pentagon. I'm talking about upgrading classification,
who conducts the classification inquiry, that is, whether an individual
gets a cue-clearance as it's called. The Department of Defense has resisted
a number of those recommendations. So I'm not suggesting that the Department
of Defense is blameless either. Perhaps, as Senator Shelby and others
have pointed out, we ought to take a look at whether or not an autonomous
agency, much as NASA, for example, is the appropriate course of action.
We're not going to reach that judgment in this Congress but I think
it's appropriate for the next Congress to review that. 
SEN.
RICHARD SHELBY: Well, that's a good question: What is the balance between
science and security? We have to have science to continue to improve
our weapons systems. We've got to have some of the best and the brightest
that we can get in the U.S. and around the world that will work at these
labs and continue, but at the same time, we cannot ever overlook security
because it goes to the vital security needs of this nation. 
SEN.
RICHARD BRYAN: Well, I agree. I mean, clearly national security, the
kind of information that was on these hard drives is extraordinarily
sensitive. I don't want to go into the details now. But this is the
kind of stuff that would be very helpful to terrorists and others who
do not have the best interest of the United States at heart. Security
is a legitimate issue. The Cold War is over but there's a great many
dangers out there in the world. And I think there's been a tendency
to downplay the importance of security. There is this cultural clash
that we've all talked about between the scientific and academic community
and those who are charged with security. Clearly, both are important.
We have world-class scientists who have developed the most sophisticated
weapons systems in the history of civilization, have given us an enormous
technological advantage; we need and want those people to continue.
But it does not help us to achieve those kinds of technological breakthroughs
if, indeed, the information as to how we reach that technology is compromised
and made available to our enemies.