The House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources both held hearings last
month on the management structure of the Department of Energy's
national laboratories. Witnesses at both hearings agreed that the
nature of the relationship between the management of the laboratories
and the Department of Energy should be changed. The hearings were
held, in part, in response to the Department of Energy announcement
to open for competition the management of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and Idaho National Laboratory.
"The contracts we are discussing today are not contracts to operate
a
cafeteria, to procure a part for a tank, or to arrange cleanup
services for a contaminated site. No, these are contracts to
undertake the work of basic scientific research, which, by its very
nature, is inherently risky. It often involves failure as an element
of learning and success, and it presents a much greater challenge
when it comes to measuring performance and results," said Chairman
Judy Biggert (R-IL) of the House Subcommittee on Energy.
Testifying at this hearing were DOE Undersecretary Robert Card, Robin
Nazzaro of the General Accounting Office, Yale University Engineering
Dean Paul Fleury, and John McTague, now with the University of
California.
The subcommittee's hearing charter outlined many congressional
concerns. It noted that "Unfortunately, the public portrait of
performance of both DOE and its contractors has often been a source
of ongoing controversy rather than pride." "A proliferation
of rules
and regulations" was intended to reduce cost overruns, credit card
abuse and security lapses. The hearing charter states, "In response
to this increasing regulation, scientists began to complain that
overhead costs were eating into their science budgets, and to
complain that paperwork, conflicting regulatory mandates, and endless
review processes were causing the quality and quantity of the
scientific product to decline." This sentiment was echoed by Rep.
Vern Ehlers (R-MI) who commented, "Management's role is to establish
the research goals and give the scientists the equipment, facilities
and personnel they need to reach the goal. My concern is that
federal management is more involved now than in the past and
scientists spend too much time on paperwork and not enough on lab
work."
As can be expected, each of the witnesses brought their own
perspective to the strengths and weaknesses of the national
laboratories and their management structure. No one questioned the
value of the work performed by the laboratories. All agreed that
present practices, both in the labs and in Washington, can be
improved. Decisions about when the government should open up the
management contracts to competition is now a forefront issue, and
toward that end Undersecretary Card described how an independent
"Blue Ribbon Commission" will be established by the Secretary
of
Energy Advisory Board to examine the matter. That commission is
expected to report, Card said, "by the end of the fiscal year,"
which
is September 30, 2003.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing was the second
in the committee's series of hearings on the governance of the DOE laboratories.
The first hearing was held on June 24 (see /fyi/2003/085.html
.) Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) welcomed an "exceptional, powerful
panel" of witnesses that included John Gibbons, Victor Reis, William
Spencer, and William Schneider. Domenici commented at the outset that
the committee hoped to use these hearings to make recommendations to
the Bush Administration on better ways to manage the laboratories.
Reis, now with Hicks & Associates, testified that the assessment
of
Sig Hecker, a witness at the first hearing, "hit the nail on the
head: the root cause of the management difficulties (and they are
real) is the lack of trust between the Department of Energy and their
laboratories. Former OSTP Director Gibbons spoke of the continuing
"layering" of bureaucracies since the 1940s. This practice
wastes
resources, he said, and is a problem that continues to grow.
Schneider, current Chairman of the Defense Science Board, discussed
the value of having close ties between a lab's management and the
government, using M.I.T.'s Lincoln Laboratory as an example of an
arrangement that works. This is in contrast, he said, to
overwhelming regulations on the universities managing weapons
laboratories, resulting in diminished productivity. In his
testimony, Spencer, Chairman Emeritus of International SEMATECH, said
that the three weapons laboratories "are better managed by private
organizations, with private incentives and minimal government
oversight. This was the situation three decades ago and a return to
something similar to that mode of management is in the best interests
of the country."
As did the witnesses at the House Science Committee hearing, and the
first Senate hearing, all of the witnesses agreed that the work of
the laboratories perform is very important. All of them also agreed
that the present governance structure must be reformed. Domenici is
scheduled to hold a third hearing on the laboratories after the
Senate returns from its recess.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl