Senator BUMPERS [continuing]. Having no choice in the matter. And shortly after that she said, you know, we commemorate Armed Services Day and Veterans Day and we commemorate every war. Why do we not have a day to commemorate peace? And I said well, you know, that does not sound like a bad idea. And quite frankly, to counter what I thought was a lunacy defense policy that we had embarked on I thought it might have a salutary effect on diminishing people's appetite for more nuclear weapons and so on. And so I introduced a bill in the Senate to establish a National Peace Day. And it was about to pass with no controversy, I think it had about 50 cosponsors on the bill.

And a Senator rose one evening in the Senate and chastised my wife and all the board members, called them Communists and so on, and a firestorm broke out. It was so crazy that virtually every Senator in the Senate-they were not defending me, they were defending Betty. Most Senators knew her and admired her and respected her, and every Senator wanted to speak and take this Senator on. Finally, Howard Baker came back and said, Dale, you know, I would like to speak on Betty's behalf, too, but we have got to get this bill passed.

I never will forget that night. Paul Tsongas said he went out to check the moon to see if that had precipitated this whole thing. But those were difficult times for a politician from a very conservative State.

So I am very sympathetic and I understand it. And as I say, it is unfortunate that those things do happen. I certainly do intend to vote for you. I had reservations, really, about your naivete more than anything else, as I say, putting that on your résumé. But having said that, we welcome you and we wish you well. I am quite sure you are going to be reported out of this committee.

Dr. O'TOOLE. Thank you Senator. It has been a learning experience for me.

Senator BUMPERS. Senator Mathews.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARLAN MATHEWS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

TENNESSEE

Senator MATHEWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. O'Toole, I think we have visited this question long enough. As you know, I was one of the ones that had a question in my mind. I believe that what has been said here today by you and what has been said by other members of this committee demonstrates that we were sort of poking at ghosts in the dark, that there was an image of something present that was not really there, and I am delighted to say that the questions that were in my mind have been answered, and I do not want to revisit that again.

I would like to take just a moment, though, if I could and mention a couple of things to you that are of importance and that you will be dealing with. And I would like to have just a few thoughts from you on how you might approach these matters.

I think every one of us around here who has been around the table or interested, and many of us have one or more of the national labs located in our State, and they performed yeoman service in many, many ways. Fortunately or unfortunately, over a period of time most of us have created hazardous sites connected

with these, and the defense sites are very much the same way. As has been said already this morning, we need to bring some order, and some economy very frankly, out of the way that we are approaching this cleanup business.

Looking at it now in the job that you are about to undertake, EPA is going to be looking over one shoulder and probably NRC over the other one. How do you see yourself fitting first of all into this triangle, and how many other agencies do you see that are going to be second guessing the work that you are going to be doing at Energy?

Dr. O'TOOLE. Well, Senator, I think the major task for the Environment Safety and Health Office is going to be to try to, as you say, bring some coherence and clarity to this welter of regulations coming from many different quarters, particularly EPA that, have some relevance to the various weapons sites. We cannot instantly comply with all of the regulations at once. It is just physically impossible.

We have to figure out what the most urgent threats are and address them first in some forthright manner. And I think asking and answering that question is the first job of the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.

Senator MATHEWS. Let me go just a little bit farther. I think the people of my State are as interested as people anywhere in this country or this world in our having a clean environment and our doing the things that need to be done to protect the public from the things that we have done up to this date, very frankly. I do not think I am being unfair when I say that I believe the people also have the opinion that a lot of the EPA regulators probably studied at the University of Witchcraft, that there is no sense to the things that we are doing in many areas, that we do the overkill.

I am very much interested and appreciative of the fact that you are coming with a medical background. And I am very hopeful that as you approach the job you are going to approach it based upon the risk to the human population rather than on superstition and rumor. This is the thing I think that we must do. We are getting to the point where we cannot waste $6 billion a year or every 2 years in trying to determine-do the overkill. Do you have any comments in terms of how you are going to approach this task?

Dr. O'TOOLE. Well, I may be accused of being politically naive again, Senator, but I truly believe, and I believe this as a consequence of my experience as a practicing physician and public health professional, that if we take the best science-that is, what we know-and we present it to people and we talk with people in these communities, the stakeholders around the DOE weapons sites, and we inaugurate an open process of discussion, that people will make reasonable choices about how to go forward.

Now, the Department has been neglectful in its responsibilities to obey many complex environmental laws in the past, and consequently they are now playing catch-up, trying to go back and come into compliance with some of these very detailed, very specific laws. And the communities and the State Governments who harbor weapons sites are very frustrated with DOE's past neglect and also with the slow pace of progress. The Secretary has made a strong commitment to coming into compliance with these laws, and I

know that she and Assistant Secretary Grumbly regard the interagency agreements forged with the States and EPA as very solemn commitments.

But I do think we need to form these fora within which we can discuss rational ways forward, and it may be that urgent health threats that need to be addressed in the future will have to be pursued at the expense of missing some milestones agreed to in IAG's. But that should be done as part of a negotiated process between DOE and EPA and the States.

I think we can do that. I think we can make sense. I think we can pursue sound business practices, use good common public health policy and good science, and make progress.

Senator MATHEWS. Just one more short question and I will be through. Oftentimes, sitting here as we develop legislation, my perception is that we do not always write into law what science would dictate that ought to be there, that we from time to time vary and get a little of our own personal feelings into the law. I would like to request that as you embark upon this venture, and certainly, I am one who is ready to support you for this job, that as you embark upon this, that if the law has any conflict with science, if the law is in conflict with what you would do as an expert in this area, what you would recommend, that you bring that to our attention so that we do not needlessly spend money on something that science would say is no longer required. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you.

Senator Shelby.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD C. SHELBY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ALABAMA

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I am sorry I missed part of the hearing. I was in an Armed Services Committee meeting.

I met with Dr. O'Toole on Monday. We discussed a number of questions, including her education, her background, some of her philosophy. I believe the position she has been nominated for is a very, very important position, a challenging position. But after having talked with her, after having read about her educational background, her work experience, I believe that she would bring some unique qualifications to this job. And although she has got her work cut out for her, I believe she will do the job and do it well. And I wanted to come to this hearing because I told her.

Senator BUMPERS. You just shocked me, Senator Shelby. But having said that, let me conclude this hearing by sayingSenator LOTT. Mr. Chairman?

Senator BUMPERS. Oh, I am sorry. Senator Lott, I did not realize you had

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, U.S. SENATOR FROM

MISSISSIPPI

Senator LOTT. Thank you, Senator Bumpers. Ms. O'Toole, welcome to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I am sorry I have not been here for the entire time. I will not ask a lot of questions at this time. I would like to submit some written

questions for the nominee's response, Mr. Chairman. It will not be a lengthy list. I am sure she will be able to give us a quick answer for the sake of time.

I do want to say that the Secretary of Energy, the Department of Energy, has been very supportive, and very aggressive in supporting you in her comments to me and others. And that is something that is very important because she has got to be able to select her people and support the people, and I think she is doing an excellent job. And therefore, that will carry a lot of weight with me. But I do think also it is important that we ask some questions, resolve some questions that are out there, and give you a chance to respond. I apologize if they have all already been touched on, but let me just go through a few questions.

For instance, the first one just has to do with there is just no question that academically you have outstanding credentials as a physician and a researcher, but I do not see that you have had a lot of managerial experience in the past. So just so we will know that and give you a chance to put on the record the experience you have had that you think would be helpful to you in this very important management position as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, would you set out for the Committee some of your management experience?

Dr. O'TOOLE. Surely, Senator. I have, of course, managed seriously ill patients in the somewhat complex world of specialists that surround such cases in this day and age of modern medical science. I have also managed a busy medical practice, intensive care units, and emergency rooms. And I have also administered and managed projects at the Office of Technology Assessment.

That said, however, I have not managed an organization as large as the Office of Environment, Safety and Health. I expect that this will be a significant challenge, which I welcome and will, of course, rely on the very able career managers in the Office of Environment, Safety and Health to help me do that.

Senator LOTT. How many people will you have in direct line of responsibility under you that you know of, numbers of people that you can be managing?

Dr. O'TOOLE. Approximately 400, Senator.

Senator LOTT. So while you have not had the occasion to run large portions of businesses or be in any positions of management, you are saying still, though, that you think with the career people that you can cope with the very serious responsibilities of managing 400 people?

Dr. O'TOOLE. Yes, I do, Senator.

Senator LOTT. I think the thing that obviously has raised a lot of concerns about your nomination, and you are aware of it, is your own résumé. It really has caused me and continues to cause me serious concerns, because you listed in your own résumé under social, charitable, and civic memberships, Natural Resources Defense Council; Greenpeace, 1989 to to 1992; Sierra Club, approximately 1990 1990 to 91; Environmental Defense fund, approximately 1990 to 92; Central American Health Network, 1988 to 1992; and Marxist/Feminist Group, present.

Now, you have responded to questions from the Chairman and the ranking member on that, but I would like to ask you more

about that because I think that average people in the country, particularly in my State, if they saw that the Assistant Secretary of Energy, Environment, Safety and Health was a member of a Marxist organization would not be comfortable with that. And so I think it is important that you be able to respond publicly to what that organization is or what were the circumstances involving your membership, what did you-I mean, did you understand it was a Marxist group? Is it a Marxist group?

I understand when their offices were called by an individual checking into your résumé, the response was what is the matter, do you have a problem with communism, or something like that? Now, I know that is not speaking for you, but it tells you a little something like maybe what this group is all about.

So how would you respond to what this group is and the circumstances that caused you to become a member and what are they now?

Dr. O'TOOLE. I would be happy to respond, Senator. The group that was originally named the Marxist/Feminist Group One was an informal group of women from the Northeast who were interested in getting together to discuss topics of general interest to women. It met three times a year and discussed such topics as novels by Afro American women, poetry by Latin American women poets, how to care for both aging parents and young children, the status of women in China and so forth. It was an informal group that did not engage in any political activity or advocate any political ideology. It did no lobbying, it did not have any formal rules or bylaws, and did not issue any publications.

I joined the group long after the name was changed to Northeast Feminist Scholars, which much more accurately reflects the interests and aims of the group. As I said, it is a discussion group of a sort of academic format.

Senator LOTT. Excuse me for interrupting you, but just for clarification, when you joined it, it was known as the Northeast Feminist Scholars, not Marxist/Feminist Group, is that what you said?

Dr. O'TOOLE. I was not there with the original naming, which happened with the founding of the the founding of the group in 1973. My understanding, going back to try and reconstruct the origins of the name is that the name was changed in the late 1970's to Northeast Feminist Scholars.

Senator LOTT. Why did you put it down as the Marxist/Feminist Group on your résumé?

Dr. O'TOOLE. Well, Senator, I did that in the interest of forthrightness and candor because it is occasionally referred to as that among academics who consider membership in this group to be of value, and I was trying to be forthright and candid and give the Senate the opportunity to you know-question that group as you are doing now.

Senator LOTT. Is it a Marxist group or was it a Marxist group? Dr. O'TOOLE. No, Senator. No. Well, Senator, I was not there when it was called that. There was no indication at any of the meetings that I attended that this was a Marxist Group, and in fact there were no discussions that I can recall about Marxism period. It never advocated any political philosophy.