Last week, key committees in the House and Senate spent
considerable time and effort on the science and technology
components of the legislation to establish the Department of
Homeland Security. In one case, solid progress was made,
while in another, the outcome was less clear. Congress is
working against the clock to enact this legislation by
September 11, complicated by a month long recess in August.
The staff of the House Science Committee labored throughout
the night to ready draft legislation for full committee
consideration on July 10, only 22 days after the White House
sent Congress its draft homeland security bill. Committee
members had earlier expressed disagreement with two major S&T
provisions in the Administration's bill. The committee
approved two important changes during their mark-up session.
The first authorized an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology to coordinate the Department's science and
technologies programs, and to provide for, and oversee,
supporting R&D. The committee also voted to prevent the
transfer of NIST's Computer Security Division. Both
provisions were in a block of amendments swiftly approved by
the committee, without dissent, by a voice vote.
There were 18 amendments considered during the three-hour mark
up. Some were approved, others rejected, and some withdrawn
upon promises of further consideration. The deliberations
were friendly and bipartisan, with the voting by voice and
the occasional show of hands.
Opinions ranged more widely, and were expressed more
forcefully, at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
hearing held later that day. Witnesses at this hearing
included Linton Brooks, Acting Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); Ray Orbach, Director
of the DOE Office of Science; William Happer of Princeton
University; and the directors of four national laboratories.
Committee chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) began the hearing by
saying that the Administration's bill "gives a nod to the
important role" of DOE and NNSA in detecting and mitigating
terrorist attacks. He worried that the Administration's plan
to transfer a unit from Lawrence Livermore would reduce the
vitality of the scientists affected, saying that he doubted
that many would want to work in a technical service
capability. Ranking Minority Member Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
lauded the Administration's bill, and spoke more generally of
the need for domestic energy production. Senator Pete
Domenici (R-NM) supported a broadening of the Under
Secretary's responsibilities, similar to what the Science
Committee had done. Domenici wants the Department of Homeland
Security to be able to access all parts of the national
laboratories. The impact of the Administration's proposal on
Lawrence Livermore employees was the focus of Senator Diane
Feinstein's (D-CA) initial statement.
NNSA Administrator Brooks told the senators that the national
labs "are key in making all of this work." He sought to
assure the committee that the Administration's plan would not
affect the labs' ability to fulfill their core mission.
Brooks identified the Chemical and Biological National
Security Program and the nuclear smuggling detection and
assessment activities as units that would be transferred to
the new Department of Homeland Security. In concluding his
remarks, Brooks said, "I support fully the concept of locating
the new Department's main research facility at Lawrence
Livermore, with satellite centers of excellence located at
other national laboratories. It will create a campus-like
environment where scientists will be dedicated, full-time, to
thinking about homeland security, and it will allow for
direct interaction with the expertise that resides at the
other DOE labs as well as other labs throughout the federal
government. It's good for DOE and it's good for the
Department of Homeland Security."
Director Orbach also gave the Administration's plan high
marks. He outlined the need for universities to have a single
point of contact at the laboratories, described how some
functions would be transferred, and spoke of the lab
employees' great patriotism.
Chairman Bingaman's first line of questions revolved around
"what is meant by 'proposed transfer'?" Would affected
employees be physically moved, and would they report to new
bosses? he asked. Brooks replied that while responsibilities
and budgets would be moved to the new department, "we don't
propose to build any walls in the laboratories." "The
scientists will still be doing the same work," Brooks said.
Would this new arrangement resemble the current laboratory
practice of "work for others"? Bingaman asked. Brooks
replied that the proposed changes are more of a philosophical
and administrative nature. Would pay checks still come from
the lab? Bingaman said. "Yes," responded Brooks.
Domenici had his doubts. He remarked that previous
consolidations, such as DOE, had turned out worse than the
original structure. He made, as later characterized by
Feinstein, disparaging comments about Lawrence Livermore, and
wanted to know why it had been singled out over the other two
weapons labs. Domenici wanted all of the labs to be
incorporated into the new Department, although he admitted he
would not prevail. Brooks sought to assure Domenici. "No one
lab will have supremacy" he said, later adding that he would
not attempt to rank them in importance. Access to all of the
assets of the laboratories will be crucial, Brooks told the
committee. Subsequent testimony by Happer and the lab
directors described the importance of the laboratories to the
new Department of Homeland Security.
Other committees worked on portions of the homeland security
legislation last week. These committees altered the
Administration's legislation in major and minor ways. Special
committees in both the House and Senate are now using the
amended legislation written by these committees to craft a new
version of a bill to establish the Department of Homeland
Security.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl