House Hearing on the Department of Energy National Laboratories

Two House science subcommittees yesterday held an exhaustive all-day joint hearing on the future of the Department of Energy national laboratories. Although there was an all-star witness list and considerable Member interest, the outlook for the laboratories remains clouded. If there was one message to be taken away from the hearing, it is that the laboratories will be changed, although how and when this will occur is still an unknown.

Interest in redefining the national laboratories is not new. Since 1990, 12 reports have been issued on the labs. What has intensified the drive to change the management of the laboratories, if not the laboratories themselves, is what is driving almost every other decision being made in Washington these days: the need to reduce federal spending. The laboratories are held in very high regard by Members of Congress, but as House Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) exclaimed in his opening remarks, “The Cold War is over!” He continued that while he and his colleagues have an open mind about the future of the laboratories, they do not have “open pocketbooks.” House Science Committee Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-California) added that “the time is appropriate, and we are going to have to do something.” Brown offered his general observation that any government agency can be cut by one-third, and if done the right way, can still function.

There are now four bills pending in the House concerning the laboratories. The bill to watch would seem to be H.R. 2142, the Department of Energy Laboratories Mission Act, which, according to a subcommittee brief, “defines the criteria for missions of the laboratories, and directs the Secretary of Energy to assign missions and streamline the labs, if necessary, to accomplish those missions.” The other three bills are aimed more directly at consolidating, closing, or reducing the size of the labs. H.R. 2142 is sponsored by House Basic Research Subcommittee Chairman Steve Schiff (R-New Mexico), who because of his chairmanship, and the location of two major national laboratories in his state, will play an important role in shaping any legislation. Schiff said in his opening remarks, “There are those who believe that...we should close down the Department of Energy and some of the labs. I do not.”

Acting DOE Deputy Secretary Charles B. Curtis testified “there are problems,” and explained how the department is moving ahead to implement many of the management changes called for by the Galvin Task Force. He said that H.R. 2142 is consistent with DOE’s efforts. Under close questioning by House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-Pennsylvania), Curtis explained that management reforms will take many years across several administrations. While DOE embraced many of the Task Force’s recommendations, Walker was able to draw a clear response from Curtis about corporatizing the laboratories, as the report called for. “We certainly rejected that recommendation,” Curtis said, adding that Congress would be very unlikely to give the laboratories money without having control over how it would be spent.

Rohrabacher was not overly impressed by DOE’s efforts. He asked Curtis if it would not be possible to close down at least one of the laboratories. Curtis replied, “sure,” saying that it would probably be possible to close one of the existing 30 laboratories.

Also testifying were three panels of experts from private industry, universities, and the directors of six major national laboratories. Robert Galvin made an apt comment describing the past and current situation when he said bluntly to the House members, “you are a big part of the problem.”

Schiff characterized the outlook for the laboratories when he said to the witnesses, and to the standing-room-only audience, that the good news was that there was so much interest in the labs that it took the subcommittee members two and one-half hours just to receive testimony from Curtis. This seems to parallel the current situation: while the labs are of keen interest, it is likely that many more words will be written and said about the laboratories before any major legislative action occurs.