House Defeats Plans to Cut National Laboratories
During House floor debate on H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, three amendments were offered to reduce the national laboratories. As explained in FYI #150, none of these amendments were adopted. The debate and roll call votes do, however, provide insight into current congressional thinking about the labs, as well as what direction Congress may take in the future.
The first amendment offered by Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) would have required “the aggregate number of individuals employed by all government-owned, contractor-operated departmental laboratories, other than departmental defense laboratories” to be reduced by “at least one-third” within five years of the enactment of the bill.
In explaining his amendment, Roemer said it “will help balance the budget by requiring that the national laboratories participate in fair, even cuts, as many of the other items in this bill are experiencing.... This bill is about eliminating real corporate welfare.” Citing the Galvin Report, Roemer added that his amendment “eliminates self-regulation by the DOE labs in meeting Federal, State and local environmental health and safety regulations.”
Speaking in support of the Roemer amendment was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who is chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy.
Rising in opposition to the Roemer amendment was Rep. Bill Richardson (D-NM), who criticized the 33% cut as extreme. His amendment, offered as a substitute for Roemer’s, would establish a DOE Laboratory Operations Board “to provide advice regarding the strategic direction for Department laboratories.” The Richardson amendment would require a 15% cut over five years, which he said “is something that the scientific community and the Department of Energy can live with.” Roemer’s amendment, Richardson claimed, would result in between 14,000 and 20,000 people being cut from the labs, adding “you are literally going to be closing down some laboratories.”
House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) criticized the two amendments on a number of grounds, noting “we are cutting money out of programs that most people regard as a national asset for this country. We have had very little testimony to indicate that we do not have in the national laboratories assets of great importance to our future.”
The House then voted. It rejected Richardson’s 15% reduction amendment by a vote of 147-yes to 247-no. It then turned to the Roemer amendment, requiring a 33% cut, and rejected it by a vote of 135-yes to 286-no. See FYI #153 for a list of those representatives favoring the 33% reduction. (Over)
The last amendment was offered by Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI). It sought the privatization of DOE laboratories, calling for the sale of “all Department of Energy laboratories other than Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.” Lawrence Livermore would be offered for sale at a later date. In describing the rationale for his amendment, Klug said, “many of these labs no longer have a mission.” He went on to describe how Britain has privatized some of its laboratories.
After some debate, the House rejected by a voice vote the Klug amendment. This is not the end of the road for those seeking to privatize the laboratories. During debate on the Klug amendment, subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher rose in “reluctant opposition” to the amendment because his subcommittee did not have a chance to hold hearings on it. Turning to Klug, Rohrabacher said, “I would hope that the gentlemen from Wisconsin, if this loses in a vote on the floor, would not give up but instead resubmit this and submit it to the committee and I would be very happy to bring this up at the earliest possible time.”
