Congress Ready to Reorganize DOE Weapons Labs
“There are no negotiations -- it is done,” declared a top House Science Committee staffer about congressional efforts to reorganize the management of the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons labs. He was speaking about Title XXXII of S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000, which establishes a National Nuclear Security Administration.
After many months of hearings and the release of two highly critical reports, House and Senate defense conferees agreed to a series of provisions that were outlined in a House Report (106- 301). All that is left now is for representatives and senators to cast a final up-or-down vote on this conference report. When they vote, they will be agreeing, in the words of the conference report:
“To establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department [of Energy] that would be responsible for nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear propulsion, defense nuclear nonproliferation, and fissile material disposition; establish security, counterintelligence, and intelligence offices; and prescribe personnel, budgeting, and other management practices for the NNSA.”
This did not turn out the way that Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson had wanted. In mid-July, Richardson had called Senate language contained in a different bill “a good start.” That start was interrupted when the House and Senate defense authorization committees rightly claimed jurisdiction over the labs. The result of their work was a much-changed legislative vehicle that would fundamentally alter the relationship between the labs and the Department of Energy. That fundamental alteration is no accident -- congressional critics of DOE are legion.
The Clinton Administration has not decided what it will now do. Last week, White House Chief of Staff John Podesta said of this reorganization language, “that’s under review as we speak.” He continued, it “is something we haven’t made a judgement on,” saying that the Office of Management and Budget officials will confer with the President and Richardson early this month. Podesta did say that “accountability has been undermined.”
That accountability has been a key sticking point for Richardson. At one point in the conference report it says of the new Undersecretary for Nuclear Security, who would also be the Administrator for Nuclear Security: “As Administrator, the Under Secretary would be subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Energy. Such authority, direction, and control could only be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Energy.”
If that were the end of it, Richardson would probably not oppose the bill language. However, other provisions of the bill describing the Administrator’s responsibilities in policy formulation, lines of authority, legislative affairs, public affairs, and personnel are less clear. Robin Staffin, DOE Senior Advisor for Science and Technology warned last week “for this whole system to work, we need clarity.” Said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) last month, “I don’t think that if we recalled William Shakespeare from the grave that we could have written this . . . provision to satisfy everyone.”
Dr. Harlan Watson, Majority Staff Director of the House Energy and Environment Science Subcommittee (the staffer quoted in the first paragraph) expects the House to vote on this final conference report very soon. He expressed concerns at an AAAS meeting last week that the legislation would set up a substantial and isolating firewall between the weapons and non-weapons laboratories. Staffin agreed, saying “this will be a wall that will grow,” with Watson predicting that there will be “very little incentive for the Office of Science to put money into the weapons laboratories” because of difficulties created by the new lines of authority.
Congressional conferees dealt with this issue in a section of the conference report entitled “Use of Capabilities of National Security Laboratories by Entities Outside [National Nuclear Security] Administration.” It states: “The conferees agree to include a provision that would require the Administrator to establish procedures that would, consistent with the national security mission of the Administration, make the capabilities of the national security laboratories available to elements of the Department of Energy that are not part of the Administration, other Federal agencies and other entities.”
The next step is for the full House and Senate to take a final vote on the entire defense authorization bill. This is a very popular bill that contains provisions for new military spending and pay raises. It is predicted that it will pass by an overwhelming and veto-proof margin. Watson spoke of follow-up amendments being prepared during the next few weeks by the House Science and Commerce Committees to strengthen science and technology cooperation between various labs. He urged the scientific community to speak with one voice about scientific openness, with constituents communicating directly to their individual representatives and senators. “That’s the way to do it,” Watson said.
