Charles Skelton: “Mr. Chairman, were it not for the Cox-Dicks amendment, this would be a different case. We not only are replowing the…”

“Mr. Chairman, were it not for the Cox-Dicks amendment, this would be a different case. We not only are replowing the same ground, we find this amendment in conflict with that amendment which we have already passed unanimously in this body. However, this amendment is not necessary because of the reasons that I heretofore stated. Mr. Chairman, the protection of critical nuclear information is a very serious matter. There has been a compromise, and some changes are required in the manner in which security and counterintelligence matters are handled. The amendment does provide some increased emphasis on counterintelligence and potential for enhanced protection, but would codify the counterintelligence program mandated by Presidential Directive 61 in the least restrictive manner thus far proposed that provides a waiver by the Secretary of Energy during moratorium. However, since the Cox-Dicks amendment has been accepted by this body, as I point out, by unanimous vote on a rollcall vote, this amendment is not needed. It flies in the face, sadly, with the Cox-Dicks amendment, so we would have two standards set forth in the bill should this be adopted.”