Laergy/White House relationship is in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the subsequent legislation establishing the Department of Energy. Dr. Wagner, who will follow me ia presenting his testimony, will elaborate further on the cooperative relationship between our two Departments. ADJUSTING TO CHANGE Because the work of our organization is vital to the national defense, we must strive to conduct our business in a manner that will prompt neither a negative public nor regulatory reaction which could threaten to compromise our ability to get the job done; we pust manage our business in ways that we as citizens, would hope that other industrial operations would be managed. This means our operations must be carried out in a secure, safe, and environmentally responsible manner. In addition, our operations Bust produce the required weapons quantities while meeting the stringent quality requirements that will assure their safety and reliability. All of our efforts must be managed efficiently and economically. In recent years the operational standards against which we must work have been changing. The experience of the Three Mile Island lacident has tightened the standards and practice for the operation of defense related reactors. The increasing world-wide incidence of terrorist activities has required that we enhance the physical security afforded nuclear materials in our sensitive facilities. Our ongoing efforts to effectively manage radioactivity since the inception of our program have paid off; but now, the adequacy of previously accepted industrial standards and practices for management of other chemicals and waste for the protection of the environment and the public 18 more and more coming into question. We are adjusting to each of these changes in a careful, responsible way. We have reviewed our most critical facilities and operations to define areas needing improvement. We are continuing these studies throughout the Defense Programs complex. We have developed prioritized plans for addressing the identified deficiences. Our Fiscal Year 1984 supplemental request and our Fiscal Year 1985 budget request that we will justify to you, contain near-term priority upgrades necessary to correct known deficiencies: Our primary responsibility, however, is to produce and maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile in a safe ; . secure, and environmentally responsible manner. THE ISSUES In their testimony following my statement, the Defense Programs bilities and the manner in which they are addressed in the Fiscal Year 1985 budget and Fiscal Year 1984 supplemental request. They will cover the major issues and challenges before them, and they will address the security, safety, and environmental actions proposed and underway to assure the success of their programs. General Hoover, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Application, will address the reasons why, in support of the Defense Department, we are engaged in a substantial effort to replace the older weapons in the United States arsenal with more advanced state-of-the-art systems along with some of the technical challenges involved in pursuing the President's Strategic Defense Initiative and other weapon developments. Dr. Gilbert, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Materials, will discuss the reasons why the Department must continue to produce increased quantities of plutonium and tritium for the weapon program and the steps we are planning, to provide for responsible interim and long-term management of our radioactive waste. Mr. Culpepper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security Affairs, will discuss with you the issues associated with safeguards and security at our nuclear facilities, classification concerns and activities of the Verification and Control Technology program. BUDGET REQUESTS (Chart 3) Our Fiscal Year 1985 appropriation request for Defense Programs totals $7.3 billion. In addition the request for the Fiscal Year 1984 Supplemental is $157.6 million (Chart 4). General Hoover, Dr. Gilbert, and Mr. Culpepper will explain in detail the specific requirements for their programs. (Chart 5) Because our work is in direct support of the United States military nuclear forces, it seems appropriate, for perspective, to compare the size of the Department's Defense Programs effort to the combined total of the nuclear force effort in the Department of Defense and in the Department of Energy. In that context, in Fiscal Year 1985, our budget request comprises about 15 percent of the total. In Fiscal Year 1984, the percentage is about 15 percent, and in Fiscal Year 1983, it was approximately 14 percent. in the context of prior year budgets, our Fiscal Year 1985 request and the Fiscal Year 1984 supplemental may seen large. I suggest that in the context of the Department of Defense budget for nuclear weapon systems, our request is not only very reasonable, but it is also consistent with Congressional action in prior years. While we are all concerned about budget deficits, our primary objective within Defense Programs is to provide the nuclear warheads to support the strategic posture of the Administration. We believe our budget request will continue to provide for balanced support of the Department of Defense. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ROBERT L. MORGAN Robert L. Morgan was appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, U.s. Department of Energy (DOE) on January 3, 1984. He also continues in his dual position as Manager of the Department's Savannah River Operations office in South Carolina, which he has held since March 1, 1980. Prior to his new appointment as Principal Deputy in the Defense Programs office, Mr. Morgan served as Director of Doe's Nuclear Waste Policy Act Project office since appointment on January 31, 1983. Mr. Morgan began working with the u.s. reactor development program in 1959 while with the U.S. Army at the Idaho Operations Office of the then, Atomic Energy Commission. In June 1965, he resigned his commission and accepted a position at the Savannah River Operations office. He was concerned with the development of work in the Heavy Water Organic Cooled Power Reactor program and when the program was transferred to Canogo Park, California in 1966, Mr, Morgan became the Senior Representative at that site for reactor development programs. Mr. Morgan rejoined the staff at the Savannah River Operations office in July 1973 as Deputy Manager. In November 1977, he was detailed to DOE Headquarters in Washington where he first served as Acting Director for Field Operations Management for the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology. In May 1978, he was assigned as Acting Director of the office of Nuclear waste Management. He returned to full time status at the Savannah River Operations Office in November 1978 where, in addition to his duties as Deputy Manager, he also served as Assistant Manager for Health, Safety and Environment. In February 1981, Mr. Morgan was once again detailed to DOE'S DEFENSE PROGRAMS Chart 1 DEFENSE PROGRAMS MISSION • DESIGN, TEST AND MANUFACTURE ALL U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS • DEVELOP INERTIAL FUSION IN SUPPORT OF THE NATION'S MILITARY NEEDS • PRODUCE ALL NUCLEAR MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR THE U.S. WEAPONS PROGRAM AND MANAGE DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE • ENSURE THE PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND DOE FACILITIES • ENSURE VERIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL ARMS AGREEMENTS AND CONTROL THE TRANSFER OF SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT • CONTROL THE DISSEMINATION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AUTHORITY Chart 2 • ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED (TRANSFERRED TO DOE BY PL 95-91, "DOE ORGANIZATION ACT"). • ANNUAL "NUCLEAR WEAPON STOCKPILE |