House Subcommittee Considers Elimination of Energy Department
“Abolishing DOE does not abolish any of the real tasks assigned to it.” --Donna Fitzpatrick, former Under Secretary of Energy
Over two days of hearings, the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology collected emphatic and opposing views on the abolishment of the Department of Energy. On May 16, Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary testified in defense of her department. On May 23, three former Energy Secretaries and two former Under Secretaries of Energy gave their opinions on DOE’s future.
Most of the subcommittee members did not hold preconceived ideas about the department’s fate. Chairman Steven Horn (R-CA) explained that the hearing’s purpose was to “explore the effects of several different reform plans” for DOE. If “we decapitate DOE and graft its members onto other departments,” asked John Spratt (D-SC), “how much money would that save?” Tom Davis (R-VA) voiced concern over dismantling any agencies in haste, and Michael Flanagan (R-IL) stressed the need to maintain the continuity of government services.
O’Leary stated that her plans for reform and downsizing, coupled with the Administration’s National Performance Review, would result in a better and more efficient department. She raised concerns that dismembering DOE’s programs and handing them off to other federal agencies would result in disruption, loss of mission focus, and lowered morale. O’Leary’s plans include selling off such functions as power marketing administrations and petroleum and oil shale reserves. Asked her estimate of the savings from abolishing the department, she said that, if most of DOE’s activities were maintained elsewhere, eliminating the Office of the Secretary would only save a few million dollars a year. She noted that a CBO assessment of eliminating the department in the Reagan years found very little in savings. Davis acknowledged “I’m not sure where the savings are, either; over and above what you’re doing.” Spratt questioned the costs resulting from disruption and loss of focus and time if DOE were dismantled.
On May 23, former Energy Secretary Donald Hodel testified that DOE should be abolished. John Herrington, Energy Secretary from 1985 to 1989, agreed that DOE “is perfectly positioned for downsizing, streamlining, or total elimination.” Hodel, who was Secretary of Energy from 1982 to 1985 and Secretary of the Interior from 1985 to 1989, argued that it would make more sense to put the energy-related functions in a department of the Interior or Natural Resources, which “has more to say about the production of energy than DOE.” Herrington felt that for the billions of dollars spent by DOE on energy research, “the results are mixed at best.”
A third former Secretary of Energy, Adm. James Watkins (1989-1993), announced that he was not there to “advocate either the retention or abolishment of DOE.” He believed that the top priority was management of the nation’s nuclear complex, and whether it required a Cabinet-level office or not was unimportant. “Call it whatever you like,” he said. He also noted that much of the “high-risk, costly basic research” performed by the national labs could only be done by the federal government, and “cannot be expected to be craved as money-makers” by private industry.
The three witnesses concurred with O’Leary’s plans to sell off activities such as power marketing administrations and petroleum reserves. While Hodel and Herrington had no qualms about shifting the nuclear safety mission to DOD, Watkins expressed reservations. All three felt that the energy production functions fit more properly into a department like Interior.
A second witness panel consisted of two former Under Secretaries of Energy. Shelby Brewer (1981-1984) criticized the department for excessive bureaucracy and a cluttered, incoherent mission, but warned that it would be easier to achieve savings with all the programs in one department rather than split among many agencies. Donna Fitzpatrick (1989-1990) argued that the basic science done by the national labs was an appropriate role for the federal government, as was applied research performed for the government’s own use. She added that while they could “no doubt benefit from careful trimming,” each of the non-weapons labs had some function or facility that should be funded by the government, such as particle accelerators, light sources, and test reactors. She admitted, however, that DOE’s essential missions “might well be managed by an independent, sub-cabinet agency.”
A task force of House and Senate Republicans is expected to release a draft bill to downsize or eliminate DOE on June 8. When the abolishment of DOE is discussed, one suggestion often raised is to transfer DOE’s basic science programs to a new “Department of Science.” This idea is a favorite of House Budget Committee Vice Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA), who appeared at the May 16 hearing to advocate his plan to combine the science elements of DOE and the Commerce Department with NASA, NSF, EPA, and the USGS. Walker, who chairs the House Science Committee, said that “after we reduce the size and scope of government we should rationalize what remains into cohesive units which address problems as they exist today.” Asked about a Department of Science, O’Leary responded that it “strikes me as going in the opposite direction... toward a monolithic agency, unclear about its mission.” She estimated that such a department might require 77,000 employees and an annual budget of $46 billion. She also noted that science advisors for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Bush and Clinton all opposed the idea.
In a written statement, House Science Committee Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) questioned whether such a department would improve coordination and availability of funding over the current system, and whether it would provide adequate scientific support for the government’s mission agencies. Another witness added that, except for NSF, the federal science programs exist to support the missions and objectives of the agencies that fund them.
For DOE, the next action will come in authorization and appropriations bills. Walker’s Science Committee is the department’s authorizing committee, and the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by John Myers (R-IN), is the appropriations committee.
