Page images
PDF
EPUB

and one that in my view can provide a workable framework for carrying out the objectives of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Bateman.

Let me ask you a couple of preliminary questions about your experience in this matter.

First of all, you are not a lawyer; is that correct?

Mr. BATEMAN. That is right.

Mr. GORE. Your counterpart negotiating for the State of New York is a lawyer. Is that correct?

Mr. BATEMAN. I think so.

Mr. GORE. Had you had any experience in negotiating an agreement of this kind prior to this?

Mr. BATEMAN. A cooperative agreement? No.

Mr. GORE. Had you had

Mr. BATEMAN. I have negotiated many contracts, however.

Mr. GORE. What sort of contracts?

Mr. BATEMAN. Contracts with the Federal Government and private business.

Mr. GORE. Pursuant to grants from DOE?

Mr. BATEMAN. That is right. For example, I ran the entire interim program on synthetic fuels in the Department of Energy until the 21st of January, 1981.

Mr. GORE. Although you are not a lawyer, you did have experience in negotiating some sorts of

Mr. BATEMAN. Not a cooperative agreement. I would add to that, throughout this process of negotiation the Department was represented by the Office of General Counsel. First, by Peter Brush; second, by Jake Vreeland, and finally by Leon Silverstrom and Jim Glasgow.

The Office of General Counsel was involved throughout this from beginning to the end. In fact, even up to the actual signing of the agreement on Monday, November 3.

Mr. GORE. Two of the gentlemen you mentioned will be testifying later today.

Did you regularly consult with them during the negotiation of this cooperative agreement?

Mr. BATEMAN. Every step of the way.

Mr. GORE. With whom else did you consult during the negotiations?

Mr. BATEMAN. Principally the staff of the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy and the Assistant Secretary.

Mr. GORE. That would be Mr. McGoff?

Mr. BATEMAN. Primarily Mr. Meyers.

Mr. GORE. Dr. Meyers and Dr. McGoff will also be testifying later.

Now, you received a rather unusual delegation of authority from the Office of Procurement to sign the agreement in their name. Why was that procedure used?

Mr. BATEMAN. I don't recall in detail.

Mr. GORE. Let me ask staff to supply you with a copy of the delegation of authority. Without objection, I would like to include that in the record at this point.

[The information follows:]

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Pursuant to the authority delegated to me to take actions
under the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act,

I hereby redelegate to the Acting Under Secretary of
Energy the authority to execute on behalf of the Department
of Energy the Cooperative Agreement provided for by

section 2b. (4) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act
(P.L. 96-368, October 1, 1980).

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Mr. BATEMAN. The rationale would have to be the long connection that I had with the project, as I described in my opening remarks, and the principal role that I had in negotiating the agreement with the State of New York-Hillary Rauch, as well as other Assistant Secretaries in the Department met with me every week, where we went over all the things on our agenda, and this was something that everyone in the Department of Energy who had any association with me knew that I was carrying the major responsibility for-those on behalf of the Department and those on behalf of the administration.

It was a high-priority project from both those perspectives, and it was not unusual, in my view, to have this delegation come back to me for signing the agreement. Everyone was informed about the characteristics and features of the agreement and felt because of my long association with the project and knowledge of it, that it was appropriate that this be redelegated back to me.

Mr. GORE. Did the Office of General Counsel ever give formal concurrence to the cooperative agreement prior to your signature? Mr. BATEMAN. I haven't a record of that, but it is my recollection that every office who had a responsibility for the Department to review this agreement had an opportunity to review it and sign off on it.

Mr. GORE. The subcommittee has searched all of the interdepartmental correspondence and memos relating to the project. We have been unable to find any documentation that the agreement was circulated to the appropriate parties for their comments or concur

rence.

Why would there be no such record?

Mr. BATEMAN. I don't know why there wouldn't be such a record. The Department keeps all of these materials, the Executive Secretary is supposed to keep the official record of all these materials.

Mr. GORE. It is your testimony here that the agreement was circulated to the appropriate parties in the Department for their approval prior to you placing your signature on them?

Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, and I think in large part that would be a formality because, as I said before, all of the parties in the various offices having an interest in this agreement were an integral part of the negotiations from beginning to end.

This was put on a fast track; it was given high priority. I formed this group of people to sit with me and to negotiate the agreement under those guidelines. That is under a priority guideline, and they reported back to me daily; sometimes more frequently than daily. They came to me when there were issues that couldn't be resolved, and we tried to resolve them in my office.

Sometimes, that involved having Mr. Larocca come down from New York to see if we could work them out together when they were that serious, and this was a process that went on from the time the legislation was signed until the agreement was signed, so there was nothing in this agreement that was a surprise to anyone who had any responsibility for it, or for executing it, or for reviewing its appropriateness, because all of those offices were involved in the negotiations from beginning to end.

Mr. GORE. Let me pin you down on this one point: It is your testimony that the agreement which you signed was circulated to the appropriate parties in the Department of Energy?

Mr. BATEMAN. They were there. They made the agreement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GORE. But prior to the signing of that agreement, was it circulated to the appropriate parties, by you, for their comments and/or concurrence, with the understanding on their part you were about to sign that agreement?

Mr. BATEMAN. It is my recollection that was done; yes, sir.

Mr. GORE. Let me ask the staff to supply you with a document, and I ask unanimous consent it be put into the record at this point and make sure our colleagues have a copy of this, also. [The information follows:]

84-282 0-81--3

West Valley Agreement with New York

Status and Changes

Status:

1. The details of the agreement continue to be worked out with all deliberate speed while awaiting the next proposal from New York.

2. Special emphasis will be given to drafting a mutually acceptable version of Article VIII on management that recognizes the State's valid concerns but protects the Government's ability to effectively manage the sizable Federal effort which will be involved.

3. Article V which appears to "cap" the State's contribution under all circumstances will be revised as follows:

a. Insertion of the words "due to the effect of inflation" in the last sentence of the present version.

b. Addition of two new paragraphs:

"In the event that the total project cost should increase to the point where the project requires re-authorization by the US Congress, the Department shall consult with the Authority concerning the cost increase and the reasons therefore. The Department, in requesting such re-authorization, shall make recommendations to the Cognress concerning the Authority's share, if any, in the additional project cost. In making such recommendations the Department shall consider the reason(s) for the cost increase.

"In the event that the increase in the Authority's contribution beyond that of sections 5.2 and 5.3 should be required, the Authority may make such further contributions either in additional services or by payment to the Treasury, or both."

4. New York is expected to make their next proposal to us within about two weeks.

3 November 1980

Mr. GORE. This is entitled "West Valley Agreement With New York: Status and Changes.

The date of this document is November 3, 1980-the same day that you signed the agreement. Under "Status" it says, "The details of the agreement continued to be worked out with all deliberate speed while awaiting the next proposal from New York." It goes on to say, "Special emphasis will be given to drafting a mutually acceptable version."

It goes on to note that article 5, which appears to cap the State's contribution under all circumstances will be revised.

It goes on to say that New York is expected to make their next proposal to us within about 2 weeks.

Now, evidently-

Mr. BATEMAN. Who wrote this?

Mr. GORE. Evidently some of the parties in the Department of Energy relatively close to the negotiation-it appears some appropriate parties in the Department of Energy apparently relatively close to the negotiation appeared to be under the impression on the

day that you signed the contract, and that the negotiations were still in progress.

Now, can you explain why officials in the Department of Energy would be under that impression on the day you signed the contract?

Mr. LUNDINE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. GORE. I want to get an answer from the witness first.

Mr. LUNDINE. Do I have the right to object?

Mr. GORE. The gentleman will state his objection.

Mr. LUNDINE. If I have the right, I will reserve the right to object, and I would like to make it clear, first of all, that this is a piece of paper that is not signed by anybody; it does not indicate that it went from anyone; it does not indicate to whom it was sent; this is not on Department of Energy stationery and before I decide whether I want to object or not, I simply would like to know from you or from the staff, whether there is any independent evidence to even indicate that it is anything that other than a plain piece of paper that in handwriting says, "Number two" up above. Is there some indication that this came from the Department of Energy or that it was signed by somebody who had some official capacity with the Department of Energy?

Mr. GORE. Let me state, first of all, that the Chair will afford my colleague the right to object, the right to raise questions technically under the rules. The gentleman is a member of the full committee and not a member of the subcommittee. He is here at the courtesy of the subcommittee, and even if the gentleman was a member of the subcommittee, he would have no right to object to such a question. But in an effort to be scrupulously fair, I would like to at this point reassure the gentleman on the source of this document, and I would like to call to the witness table a member of the subcommittee staff, Mr. Jim Jensen, who is well known to members of the full committee as a long-time, valued member of the staff.

Mr. Jensen, if you would stand and be sworn?

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. JENSEN. I do.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. JENSEN, RESEARCH ASSISTANT, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. GORE. Would you examine the document we have just provided to Mr. Bateman and tell us where this document came from? Mr. JENSEN. I found it in Mr. Bateman's personal files. It was in departmental memos, reports, and testimony.

Mr. GORE. At the request of the subcommittee, you went down to the Department of Energy and examined the files relating to the West Valley project and were given those files and in a portion of the files identified as those documents in Dr. Bateman's personal files relative to this matter, you found a Xeroxed copy, which is before you. Is that your testimony?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes.

Mr. GORE. Before going back to Dr. Bateman, I will afford my colleagues an opportunity to question. If not, we will proceed.

« PreviousContinue »