UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

[CRS Issue Brief for Congress]

IB10036: Restructuring DOE and Its Laboratories: Issues in the 106th Congress

William C. Boesman

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

May 17, 2000

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

A number of legislative proposals to restructure or eliminate the Department of Energy (DOE) and the DOE laboratories have been introduced since the end of the Cold War, especially since the beginning of the 104th Congress.

This legislation has been introduced because of perceived major problems with DOE, including its overall mission. Sponsors state, for example, that about 85% of DOE's budget is for non-energy programs, even though the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources has increased since the establishment of the department. Also of concern is the department's failure to go far enough, in their view, in solving its long-term management problems, downsizing, and reducing budgets.

Any major restructuring of DOE would have significant impacts on DOE's four mission areas (science and technology, national security, energy resources, and environmental quality), all of which involve research and development (R&D), and on its nine national multiprogram and 14 smaller laboratories. It also likely would have significant impacts on certain areas of national R&D and the federal R&D budget.

A number of bills were introduced in the 104th and 105th Congresses to restructure DOE and its laboratories. They would have, among other things, eliminated DOE and transferred to other agencies, or terminated, some of its R&D programs and laboratories. Additional bills addressed other restructuring issues, including creating a commission to make recommendations about closing or reconfiguring the laboratories, reducing their personnel, and establishing explicit missions for the laboratories. None of this restructuring legislation was enacted in the 104th and 105th Congress, although a number of hearings were held.

Bills to abolish DOE and transfer or close its laboratories, similar to those of the preceding two Congresses, have been introduced in the Senate and House in the 106th Congress.

The possible compromise of highly classified information at DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories, as addressed in the Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China (the "Cox report"), has resulted in congressional calls for changes in the management of these laboratories, or even their transfer to another agency.

The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board report (the "Rudman report") has recommended specific organizational changes involving DOE's nuclear weapons functions and laboratories.

Issues for congressional consideration include whether the rationale for the establishment of DOE continues to exist and whether DOE and its laboratory management structure should be restructured to improve the security of highly classified R&D conducted in its nuclear weapons laboratories. In the event that Congress determines that current national security, energy supply, and related circumstances warrant the restructuring of DOE, issues would remain as to the appropriate disposition of DOE's missions, programs, and laboratories.

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

S. 896, H.R. 1649, and H.R. 2411 -- to abolish DOE, transfer some of its R&D programs to other agencies, and reconfigure, transfer, privatize, or close its laboratories -- were introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress. The National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, S. 1059) includes, as Title XXXII A, language to establish an independent National Nuclear Security Administration within DOE.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

The DOE Laboratories

The Department of Energy (DOE) has the U.S. government's largest laboratory system, consisting of 22 laboratories operated under contract with the private sector (corporations or universities) or by federal employees. These laboratories conduct research and development (R&D) in DOE's four major mission areas: science and technology, national security, energy resources, and environmental quality. In total, the DOE laboratories employ about 59,500 persons (full-time equivalents). The nine large multiprogram laboratories are Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). FFRDCs are owned by the government, but are operated by contractors. Table 1 provides some information for the nine large multipurpose national laboratories.

DOE has 13 smaller laboratories, including eight program-directed laboratories. These are Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA; National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV and Pittsburgh, PA; Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN; Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Palo Alto, CA; and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA. It also has five specific-purpose laboratories. These are Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, West Mifflin, PA; Environmental Measurements Laboratory, New York, NY; Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Niskayuna, NY; New Brunswick Laboratory, Argonne, IL; and Savannah River Technology Center, Aiken, SC. Four of the smaller laboratories are staffed by a total of about 690 federal employees (full-time equivalents), just over 1% of the total DOE laboratory work force. The other smaller DOE laboratories are managed and staffed by contractors, eight as FFRDCs. Employees of FFRDCs and other contractor-operated laboratories are the contractors' private-sector employees, not federal employees. DOE also funds about a dozen other laboratories through grants and cooperative agreements.

DOE's FY2001 budget request includes about $7.8 billion for its laboratories, up from about $7.7 billion in the FY2000 budget. For FY2001, the nine large multipurpose laboratories account for about 76% of the budget request, and about 76% of the personnel, of the DOE and DOE-funded laboratories.

Table 1. DOE's Nine Multiprogram Laboratories

Laboratory Location FY2001 Request
($ millions)a
Personnel
(Full-Time Equivalents)b

Nuclear Weapons Laboratories

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA $906.1 6,909
Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 1,339.0 7,478
Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM (HQ) and Livermore, CA 1,059.3 7,500

Other Multiprogram Laboratories

Argonne National Laboratory Chicago, IL 401.2 4,440
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 348.3 3,120
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Idaho Falls, ID 642.2 5,875
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 291.6 2,724
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 720.2 4,465
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA 240.6 2,831
TOTAL $5,948.5 45,342

a Department of Energy FY2001 Congressional Budget Preliminary Laboratory Table, February 2000.

b These figures are for FY1998 from DOE Laboratory Complex Statistics for Management & Operating Contractor and Federally Staffed Laboratories http://www.er.doe.gov/production/er-07/page2e.html.

Legislation in the 104th and 105th Congresses to Restructure DOE and Its Laboratories

Legislation to eliminate or otherwise restructure DOE and its laboratories was introduced at the beginning of the 104th Congress. Proponents of these bills maintained that the nation's energy R&D problems could be handled better by the private sector and that other departmental R&D programs, while appropriate federal responsibilities, could be better located in other federal agencies. Some freshmen Representatives, for example, called for the elimination of DOE, along with the Departments of Commerce, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. A similar call was made in the Senate. The House budget resolution for FY1996 proposed the termination of DOE and the reduction of many of its programs. The Senate budget resolution retained DOE, as did the conference report. In the second session, the House Budget Committee again proposed the elimination of DOE, but, in the conference report, the parties "agree[d] to disagree."

In the first session of the 104th Congress, a bill was introduced to, among other things, terminate DOE in 3 years; establish a commission to reduce the number of energy laboratories and their programs through reconfiguration, privatization and closure; transfer DOE's nuclear weapons and other defense programs, including the three nuclear weapons laboratories, to the Department of Defense (DOD); and reduce energy supply R&D programs and terminate some fossil energy programs. In the second session, a similar Senate bill was introduced. Other bills were introduced on specific aspects covered in these two bills.

Additional bills were introduced to establish the post-Cold War missions of DOE's laboratories so that any decision to restructure them could be made on a sound basis, and to reduce the personnel at the nonweapons laboratories by one-third within 10 years, terminate inferior or duplicate facilities, and consolidate other R&D at major facilities or centers of expertise. Hearings were held on a number of these bills. A hearing also was held on a proposal to create a Cabinet-level Department of Science which would consist of parts of DOE, including its laboratories and nine other federal R&D agencies. For a discussion of this subject, see A Department of Science and Technology: A Recurring Theme, CRS Report 95-235.

Similar bills were introduced in both Houses of Congress in the 105th Congress and hearings were held on related subjects. No DOE restructuring legislation was passed in either Congress. For detailed information on congressional activity on this subject in the preceding two Congresses, see DOE Laboratory Restructuring Legislation in the 104th Congress, CRS Report 97-558.

Budget Implications of Restructuring DOE Laboratories

Although improvements in managing DOE R&D programs might result from restructuring DOE and its laboratories, any overall federal budget savings that might result would depend mainly on downsizing or eliminating DOE's R&D programs and laboratories, rather than just transferring them to other governmental agencies. The three nuclear weapons laboratories, however, which currently account for about 45.3% of DOE's FY2000 budget request for its laboratories, would not be eliminated under any recent congressional proposal and probably would not decrease much, if at all, in size and budgets in the near future.

Other DOE R&D programs might be decreased and the laboratories closed, transferred to other federal agencies, or sold to academia or the private sector if buyers could be found, which is questionable in many cases. However, federal funding support for much of the fundamental scientific research currently conducted in these laboratories probably would continue wherever the laboratories are located because such research is considered, by many science policymakers, to be of national importance and it probably would not, or could not, be funded by academia or the private sector. On the other hand, much federally funded applied energy R&D appears to be vulnerable because some policymakers believe that the government should not support this kind of R&D. Many of these R&D programs, consequently, might be terminated and the laboratories transferred, sold (if buyers exist), or terminated. DOE and other policymakers, however, believe that the government should continue to support these R&D programs since they might not be adequately supported by the private sector although they consider them to be critical for the nation's long-term energy security.

Legislation on Restructuring Introduced in the 106th Congress

Senator Rod Grams introduced the first bill in this Congress to restructure DOE and its laboratories. S. 896, introduced on April 28, 1999, is similar to bills he introduced in the two preceding Congresses and to H.R. 1649 (see below). The bill would redesignate DOE as the Energy Programs Resolution Agency, an independent agency with a life of 3 years to "wind-up" the activities of DOE and "establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue in the Agency any organizational entities that were entities of the Department of Energy." The General Accounting Office (GAO) is to provide a report within 6 months making recommendations on the abolishment of DOE and the termination, transfer, or other disposition of its functions. By the act itself, certain civilian energy research and science and technology programs would be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior. Basic science research programs subsequently could be transferred by the Secretary to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The bill also would transfer DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories (Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia) to the Department of Defense. The functions of DOE's nondefense laboratories would be transferred to NSF and the Nondefense Energy Laboratory Commission would be established "for the purpose of making recommendations to Congress whether any of the nondefense energy laboratories or programs at nondefense energy laboratories or any of the basic science programs should be continued through reconfiguration, transfer, or privatization, rather than being closed ...." The bill establishes a procedure for "fast track" congressional consideration of the Commission report. The bill authorizes the President to reconfigure, transfer, privatize, or close the nondefense laboratories based upon the Commission's recommendations and congressional resolutions about each laboratory.

Representative Todd Tiahrt introduced the second bill in this Congress to restructure DOE and its laboratories. H.R. 1649, introduced on April 29, 1999, is similar to the bills he introduced in the previous two Congresses and to S. 896 (see above). It redesignates DOE as the independent Energy Programs Resolution Agency, which is to be abolished 3 years after the date of enactment of the bill. GAO is to provide a report within 6 months making recommendations on the abolishment of DOE and the termination, transfer, or continuation of its functions. The bill establishes the Energy Laboratory Facilities Commission to reduce the number of energy laboratories (defined as DOE's nine multipurpose laboratories, including the three nuclear weapons laboratories, and a number of smaller laboratories) and energy programs through "reconfiguration, privatization, and closure while preserving the traditional role that the energy laboratories have contributed to the national defense." It also establishes criteria and a procedure for making recommendations as to the disposition of the laboratory facilities. Within 3 months of enactment, a list of energy laboratories recommended by the Commission for reconfiguration, privatization, and closure shall be transmitted to "congressional energy committees" (defined as the House Science and National Security Committees and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Armed Services Committees). Unless disapproved by Congress, laboratories are to be reconfigured or closed within one year or privatized within 18 months according to the Commission's final report recommendations. The bill establishes the Defense Nuclear Programs Administration within DOD and transfers to it DOE's defense-related programs and the oversight of the functions of DOE's three nuclear weapons laboratories (Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia). It also reduces DOE's Energy Supply R&D program funding, and terminates the Clean Coal Technology program immediately and the Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation programs by FY2002.

Representative Edward Royce introduced a bill to abolish DOE, H.R. 2411, on June 30, 1999. As introduced, it is almost identical to H.R. 1649, discussed above.

Following the release of the Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China (the "Cox report," H.Rept. 106-851), which deals, among other things, with the possible compromise of highly classified information at DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories, there have been congressional calls for changes in the management of these laboratories, or even their transfer to another agency, particularly to DOD. (For a discussion of the Cox report, see Technology Transfer to China: An Overview of the Cox Committee Investigation Regarding Satellites, Computers, and DOE Laboratory Management, CRS Report RL30231 ). H.R. 1401, the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000-FY2001, for example, includes a provision to establish a "Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management." This commission, among other things, would examine DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories and propose and evaluate alternative organizational and management structures, including possibly transferring authority for the laboratories to DOD. The Cox amendment to H.R. 1401, agreed to on June 9, 1999, contains about 13 provisions that would affect DOE, including a requirement for a report by the President on whether DOE should continue to maintain the nation's nuclear weapons responsibility and a moratorium on foreign visitors at national laboratories pending background reviews. The Costello amendment to H.R. 1401 would make the contractors that operate and manage DOE laboratories subject to civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation of any DOE rule, regulation, or order relating to the security of classified or sensitive information.

The Senate, in its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 (S. 1059) following the release of the Cox report, debated an amendment (S.Amdt. 446) to create a "National Security Administration" within DOE that would have responsibility for nuclear weapons production facilities and the national laboratories. Although this amendment was withdrawn, it was announced that the proposal would be offered as an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2000 ( H.R. 1555 and S. 1009). On July 21, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 1555, as amended. It incorporates, as Title IX, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment (no. 1258) that, among other things, would establish an independent agency, the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, within DOE with authority for all DOE programs and activities related to national security, including the nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities. The Agency's director would be an Under Secretary of Energy who would report solely and directly to the Secretary of Energy. This provision was eliminated from the conference report which was filed subsequently to the enactment of P.L. 106-65 (see below).

P.L. 106-65 (S. 1059), the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000, passed the Senate on May 27, 1999. The House passed S. 1059 on June 14, 1999 after striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof H.R. 1401. Although not included in either bill as passed, the conference report (H.Rept. 106-301) includes, as Title XXXII, Subtitle A, the establishment of a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within DOE, the administrator of which would be the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of DOE who would be subject to the authority of the Secretary of Energy. As structured in the conference report, this organization is similar to that provided in H.R. 1555 as amended by the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment. The House agreed to the conference report on September 15, 1999 and the Senate on September 22, 1999.

Although the provisions establishing an independent agency within DOE in H.R. 1555 and S. 1059 are similar, it was reported that Secretary of Energy Richardson would recommend a veto of S. 1059 because, among other things, it gives the Under Secretary too much authority, but that he would accept H.R. 1555. See "DOE Wary of Latest Reorganization Plan," and "Richardson Likely to Urge Authorization Bill Veto Over DOE Language" in For Additional Reading. Although the President did sign S. 1059 on October 5, 1999, his statement includes provisions that, until further notice, the Secretary of Energy shall perform all duties and functions of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security (who is also the Administrator of Nuclear Security of NNSA), and guide and direct all personnel of NNSA by using his authority to assign any DOE officer or employee to a concurrent office within NNSA. These provisions have spurred the establishment of a Special Panel on DOE Reorganization in the House Committee on Armed Services to "work with the Administration in the timely and effective implementation of the DOE reorganization proposals mandated in" Title XXXII of P.L. 106-65 (S. 1059), according to the Committee's press release of October 5, 1999. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee held a joint hearing on DOE's implementation of the NNSA provisions of P.L. 106-65 on October 19, 1999. At that hearing, Secretary of Energy Richardson stated that the White House will nominate an administrator for NNSA by March 2000. Under DOE's new Implementation Plan for NNSA (January 1, 2000), the heads of DOE's security and counterintelligence (CI) offices, for example, would serve concurrently as heads of the security and CI offices of NNSA. This "dual-hatting" feature, claimed by DOE to be necessary because NNSA is required to be established by March 1, 2000, has been criticized by some Members of Congress as defeating the congressional intent of the act to establish NNSA as an independent agency within DOE. See "DOE Moves on NNSA Following Domenici Pledge to Seek Legislative Change" in For Additional Reading. In February 2000, the House Armed Services Committee panel published an assessment of the NNSA implementation plan. The assessment identified a number of concerns, including "that the plan overemphasizes DOE control over the NNSA, undermines the semi-autonomy of the NNSA, and would violate key provisions of Title 32" of P.L. 106-65. The assessment, among other things, also criticized the "dual-hatting" feature of the plan.

On March 18, 1999, the President requested the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman, to review the security threat at DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories and the measures that have been taken to address that threat. On June 15, 1999, the PFIAB presented its report, Science at Its Best -- Security at Its Worst (the "Rudman report"), to the President. The report found that DOE "is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself" (p. 4). The report stated that the "nuclear weapons and research functions of DOE need more autonomy, a clearer mission, a streamlined bureaucracy, and increased accountability" (p. v.) The report recommended, among other things, that the nuclear weapons R&D and stockpile management functions either remain in DOE in a new semi-autonomous agency or be transferred to a new, wholly independent agency, and that the weapons laboratories "should never be subordinated to the Department of Defense" (p. iv).

In December 1999, The Cox Committee Report: An Assessment was issued by five experts associated with the Center for International Security and Cooperation of Stanford University. The report analyzes in detail the findings of the Cox report and provides a point-by-point rebuttal of many of these findings. The authors acknowledge, however, that parts of the Cox report were not declassified and that some of the facts supporting its findings may still be classified.

There also are indications that some in Congress are considering making other significant changes in the operations of DOE's laboratories, especially the nuclear weapons laboratories, perhaps by transferring their management and operation from contractors (as FFRDCs) to the federal government. See "Congress Eyeing Major Changes At DOE Labs" in For Additional Reading.

Issues for Congressional Consideration

DOE and most of its laboratory structure evolved from the nation's atomic weapons R&D program, which began prior to World War II. The atomic weapons program was directed by the Office of Scientific Research within the White House Office of Emergency Planning until it was transferred to the Army's Manhattan Project in 1943. In 1946, the Atomic Energy Act established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, a civilian agency) to manage and regulate the nation's nuclear R&D. In addition to the nuclear weapons program, the AEC's mandate included conducting and supporting R&D in a number of fields related to the use of atomic energy for civilian purposes (including research on nuclear processes, nuclear reactor development, biology and medicine, and nuclear materials production). In effect, a major part of the federal government's energy policy at that time was the atomic energy policy of the AEC. It was not until the national energy crisis of 1973, caused by the Arab oil embargo, that Congress acted to significantly expand federal energy policy.

By the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, AEC ceased to exist. Its functions became the core of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA, to which its laboratories were transferred) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Other functions, and some single-program laboratories, were transferred to ERDA from the Department of the Interior (fossil fuels), the National Science Foundation (thermal and geothermal energy support), and the Environmental Protection Agency (alternative automobile power systems). This act and the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 provided ERDA with a broad mandate to conduct R&D in all energy areas and conduct demonstration projects and promote commercialization of energy technologies.

National energy-related problems continued into the administration of President Carter who requested the rapid establishment of a Department of Energy. Congress responded with the Department of Energy Organization Act in 1977 (P.L. 95-91) which transferred ERDA and all of its laboratories, and the Federal Energy Administration, to the new department. DOE thus gained broad responsibility for national energy policy, although major energy programs remained in the Department of the Interior. DOE still shares much nuclear policy responsibility with the NRC. Although President Reagan attempted to disestablish DOE in his FY1983 budget, the department continues today much as it has since its inception. For more details on the history of DOE, see Department of Energy Laboratories: Capabilities and Missions, CRS Report 93-752 SPR.

A basic issue in the bills to restructure DOE introduced in this and the preceding two Congresses seems to be, does the rationale for the establishment of DOE continue to exist? This rationale is summarized in the congressional declaration of findings of the DOE Organization Act of 1977 (42 USC 7111):

(1) the United States faces an increasing shortage of nonrenewable energy sources; (2) this energy shortage and our increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies present a serious threat to the national security of the United States and to the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; (3) a strong national energy program is needed to meet the present and future energy needs of the Nation consistent with overall national economic, environmental and social goals; (4) responsibility for energy policy, regulation, and research, development and demonstration is fragmented in many departments and agencies and thus does not allow for the comprehensive, centralized focus necessary for effective coordination of energy supply and conservation programs; and (5) formulation and implementation of a national energy program require the integration of major Federal energy functions into a single department in the executive branch.

A major emphasis of the DOE Organization Act was the integration of major energy functions in a departmental-level organization to meet national energy needs. An underlying issue in the legislation to restructure DOE and its laboratories introduced in the 106th Congress is whether a federal department still is required for this purpose.

As a result of the national security concerns addressed in the Cox and Rudman reports, another issue is whether DOE and its laboratory management should be restructured to improve the security of the highly classified R&D conducted in the nuclear weapons laboratories or, alternatively, whether these laboratories should be transferred to another federal agency, such as DOD. A number of hearings have been held on this subject in the 106th Congress.

Even if Congress would determine that current national security, energy supply, and related circumstances do not warrant the continued existence of DOE, issues would remain as to the appropriate distribution of its missions, programs, and laboratories to other federal agencies or private organizations, or their termination. For example, should the nation's nuclear weapons program and laboratories be transferred to the Department of Defense, as proposed in the legislation introduced in the 106th Congress, given the nation's tradition and policy of having nuclear weapons R&D and production located in a civilian agency? Also, is support of some federal laboratories, for example, fossil energy R&D laboratories, still an appropriate federal mission, or should such laboratories be sold to the private sector or closed? Would the transfer of the majority of the larger multipurpose DOE laboratories to an agency, such as the National Science Foundation, result in the establishment of, in effect, a "department of science" and is this something that the Congress wants to do?

The laboratories of the Department of Energy are widely considered to be an important national resource. Any restructuring of DOE and its laboratories could significantly change these laboratories depending upon the funding support, operating policies, scientific "culture" (that is, orientation toward basic versus mission-related R&D), and management structure of the resulting organizations.

LEGISLATION

P.L. 106-65, S. 1059
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000. Reported from Committee on Armed Services May 17, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-50). Passed Senate, amended, May 27, 1999. (Division C of S. 1059, the Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations, as passed by the Senate, also was inserted in S. 1062.) This bill includes, as Title XXXII, the national security programs of DOE, including its nuclear weapons laboratories. The House passed S. 1059 on June 14, 1999, after striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof H.R. 1401. Conference report (H.Rept. 106-301) filed in House August 6, 1999. The conference report includes, as Title XXXII, the establishment of a National Nuclear Security Administration as an independent agency within DOE. House agreed to conference report September 15, 1999, and Senate September 22, 1999. Signed into law October 5, 1999.

P.L. 106-120, H.R. 1555
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2000. Introduced April 26, 1999. Reported from the Select Committee on Intelligence, amended, May 7, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-130, Part I). Passed House May 13, 1999. Passed Senate, amended, July 21, 1999, including the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment (S.Amdt. 1258) which would, among other things, create an independent Agency for Nuclear Stewardship within DOE with authority for DOE's national security programs and nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities. The conference report (H.Rept. 106-457), filed subsequently to the enactment of P.L. 106-65, did not include S.Amdt. 1258. The House agreed to the conference report on November 9, 1999 and the Senate on November 19, 1999. Signed into law December 3, 1999.

H.R. 1401 (Spense)
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000-FY2001. Introduced April 14, 1999; referred to Committee on Armed Services. This bill includes, as Title XXXI, the national security programs of DOE, including its nuclear weapons laboratories. Reported (H.Rept. 106-162) May 24, 1999 to House by Committee on Armed Services. Cox and other amendments dealing with DOE agreed to June 9, 1999. Passed House June 10, 1999. See S. 1059 (P.L. 106-65) for further action.

H.R. 1649 (Tiahrt)
Department of Energy Abolishment Act. Introduced April 29, 1999; referred to Committees on Commerce, Armed Services, Science, Resources, Rules, and Government Reform.

H.R. 2411 (Royce)
Department of Energy Elimination and National Security Protection Act of 1999. Introduced June 30, 1999; referred to Committees on Commerce, Armed Services, Science, Government Reform, Rules, and Resources.

S. 896 (Grams)
Department of Energy Abolishment Act. Introduced April 28, 1999; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Department of Energy Reorganization. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 24 and July 14, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 198 p.

____Implementation of Department of Energy Reorganization and Reforms Contained in Title XXXII of the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. March 2, 2000. (Not yet published.)

----Subcommittee on Military Procurement. Recent Counterintelligence Problems at DOE Laboratories. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. April 15, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 37 p.

----Department of Energy Security Issues. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. October 20, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 138 p.

ญญญญResults of DOE's IG Inquiries into Specific Aspects of the Espionage Investigations at LANL. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. November 5 and 10, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 44 p.

____Special Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization. National Nuclear Security Administration. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. March 2, 2000. (Not yet published.)

____National Nuclear Security Administration and Implementation of Provisions of Title XXXII. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. March 16, 2000. (Not yet published.)

____Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Implementation Plan: An Assessment. 106th Congress, 2nd session. February 2000. 40 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. The Rudman Report: Science at Its Best -- Security at Its Worst. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 22, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 94 p.

----Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Reorganization of the Department of Energy. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. June 21, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1995. 163 p.

---- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Assessing the Department of Energy's Management of the National Laboratory System. Hearing, 105th Congress, 1st session. October 9, 1997. Washington, GPO, 1997. 148 p.

----Results of Security Inspections at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. July 20, 1999. (Not yet published.)

----Security at the Department of Energy's Laboratories: The Perspective of the General Accounting Office. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. April 20, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 55 p.

----Security at DOE's Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. October 26, 1999. (Not yet published.)

____Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Safety and Security of the New National Nuclear Security Administration. Joint hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. March 14, 2000. (Not yet published.)

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Restructuring the Department of Energy. Joint hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. July 13, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 78 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Security Lapses at DOE Facilities. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 24, 1999. (Not yet published.)

----Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology. Consolidating and Restructuring the Executive Branch. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. May 16, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1996. 88 p.

----Consolidating Federal Programs and Organizations. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. May 16 and 23, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1996. 203 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. The Cox Committee: Report of the Select Committee on U.S. Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. May 26, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 76 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. June 28, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1995. 65 p.

----The Rudman Report on Security Problems at the Department of Energy. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 29, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 353 p.

----Security at the Department of Energy: Who's Protecting the Nation's Secrets. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. May 20, 1999. (Not yet published.)

----Subcommittee on Basic Research and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. GAO Report on the Department of Energy National Laboratory Management. Joint Hearing, 105th Congress, 2nd session. September 23, 1998. Washington, GPO, 2000. 1103 p.

----Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories, "The Galvin Report," and National Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and Better Management, a GAO Report to the Secretary of Energy. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. March 9, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1995. 1,240 p.

----Hearings on H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1993 (Title II), and H.R. 2142 [DOE restructuring bills]. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. September 1995, Washington, GPO, 1996. 671 p.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Procurement and Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. The Rudman Report on Security Problems at the U.S. Department of Energy. Joint hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 29, 1999. (Not yet published.)

U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China. Report of the Select Committee on . . . . H.Rept. 105-851, 105th Congress, 2nd session. May 25, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. Vol. I, 262 p.; Vol. II, 347 p.; Vol. III, 263 p.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Alleged Chinese Espionage at DOE Laboratories. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. April 12, 1999. (Not yet published.)

----Department of Energy Security and Reorganization. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. April 23, 1999. (Not yet published.)

----Hearings on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Findings and Recommendations to Reorganize DOE's National Security Programs. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 23, 1999. (Not yet published.)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committees on Armed Services, Energy and Natural Resources, Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Hearings on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Report: Science at Its Best -- Security at Its Worst. Joint Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 22, 1999. (Not yet published.)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Department of Energy Abolishment Act: Hearing on S. 1678. Hearing, 104th Congress, 2nd session. September 4, 1996. Washington, GPO, 1997. 159 p.

----Department of Energy Realignment and Downsizing. Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. July 11, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1995. 146 p.

____National Nuclear Security Administration. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. October 19, 1999. Washington, GPO, 1999. 53 p.

----National Security at DOE Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. July 16, 1999. (Not yet published.)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development and Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy Laboratories. Joint Hearing, 104th Congress, 1st session. February 28, 1995. Washington, GPO, 1995. 73 p.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and Committee on Governmental Affairs. DOE's Implementation of Provisions of the Defense Authorization Act Which Create the National Nuclear Security Administration. Joint Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. October 19, 1999. (Not yet published.)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services. An Examination of the Report of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. May 26, 1999. Washington, GPO, 2000. 89 p.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Intelligence. DOE Reorganization. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 9, 1999. (Not yet published.)

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

Crawford, Mark. Congress Eyeing Major Changes At DOE Labs, The Energy Daily, v. 27, 3 May 1999: 1,4.

Curtis, Charles et al. Fixing the National Laboratory System, Issues in Science and Technology, v. 3, Spring 1997: 49-56.

Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Status of Federal Laboratory Reforms. Washington, March 1997. 13 p. plus appendices.

----National Science and Technology Council. Interagency Federal Laboratory Review Final Report. Washington, May 15, 1995. 22 p.

----President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Science at Its Best -- Security at Its Worst. Washington, June 1999. 58 p.; Appendix, 35 p.

Johnston, Alastair Ian et al. The Cox Committee Report: An Assessment. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation, December 1999. 99 p.

Lobsenz, George. DOE Moves on NNSA Following Domenici Pledge to Seek Legislative Change, The Energy Daily, v. 28, January 4, 2000: 1, 2.

Reddy, Tarun. DOE Wary of Latest Reorganization Plan, Inside Energy/With Federal Lands, August 9, 1999: 1, 15-16.

Richardson Likely to Urge Authorization Bill Veto Over DOE Language, Inside the New Congress, v. 6, August 13, 1999: 9.

Stelzer, Irwin M. The Department of Energy: An Agency That Cannot Be Reinvented. Washington, The American Enterprise Institute, June 1995. 46 p.

U.S. Department of Energy. Saving Dollars and Making Sense: Strategic Alignment and Downsizing. May 1995. 18 p.

----Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories (the "Galvin Task Force Report"). February 1995. Vol. I, 66 p. plus appendix; Vol. II: White Papers, 74 p. plus charts.

----Laboratory Operations Board. Strategic Laboratory Missions Plan -- Phase I. July 1996. Vol. I, 112 p.; Vol. II, various pagination.

----External Members of the Laboratory Operations Board. Analysis of Headquarter (sic) and Field Structure Issues. September 30, 1997. 6 p.

----Review of the Department of Energy's Small Laboratories. June 26, 1998. 13 p.

----Report of the External Members of the Department of Energy Laboratories Operations Board, October 26, 1995. 18 p.

----Second Report of the External Members .... September 1996. 6 p.

----Third Report of the External Members .... September 1997. 10 p. plus attachments.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Department of Energy: A Framework for Restructuring DOE and Its Missions (GAO/RCED-95-197). August 21, 1995. 40 p.

----Department of Energy: Alternatives for Clearer Missions and Better Management at the National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-95-128). March 9, 1995. 7 p.

----Department of Energy: Clearer Missions and Better Management Are Needed at the National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-98-25). October 9, 1997. 12 p.

----Department of Energy: Framework Is Needed to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions. (GAO/T-RCED-95-232). June 21, 1995. 14 p.

----Department of Energy: Key Factors Underlying Security Problems at DOE Facilities. (GAO/T-RCED-99-159. April 20, 1999. 20 p.

----Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and Better Management (GAO/RCED-95-10). January 27, 1995. 45 p.

----Department of Energy: Need to Address Longstanding Management Weaknesses (GAO/T-RCED-99-255). July 13, 1999. 16 p.

----Department of Energy: Observations on the Future of the Department (GAO/T-RCED-96-224). September 4, 1996. 20 p.

----Department of Energy: Progress Made Under Its Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative (GAO/T-RCED-96-197). June 12, 1996. 6 p.

----Department of Energy: Uncertain Progress in Implementing National Laboratory Reforms (GAO/RCED-98-197). September 10, 1998. 58 p.

____Department of Energy: Views on DOE's Plan to Establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (GAO/T-RCED-00-113). March 2, 2000. 10 p.

----Energy Downsizing: While DOE Is Achieving Budget Cuts, It Is Too Soon to Gauge Effects (GAO/RCED-96-154). May 13, 1996. 14 p.

____Nuclear Security: Improvements Needed in DOE's Safeguards and Security Oversight. (GAO/RCED-00-62). February 24, 2000. 27 p.

____Nuclear Security: Security Issues at DOE and Its Newly Created National Nuclear Security Administration. (GAO/T-RCED-00-123). March 14, 2000. 9 p.

CRS Reports

CRS Report RL30231 . Technology Transfer to China: An Overview of the Cox Committee Investigation Regarding Satellites, Computers, and DOE Laboratory Management, by Marcia S. Smith, Glenn J. McLoughlin, and William C. Boesman.

CRS Report RL30054 . Research and Development Budget of the Department of Energy for FY2000: Description and Analysis, by Richard E. Rowberg.

CRS Report RL30307 . Department of Energy: Programs and Reorganization Proposals, by Carl E. Behrens and Richard E. Rowberg.

CRS Report 97-558. DOE Laboratory Restructuring Legislation in the 104th Congress, by William C. Boesman.

CRS Report 95-235. A Department of Science and Technology: A Recurring Theme, by William C. Boesman.

CRS Report 95-1020. Department of Energy Abolition? Implications for the Nuclear Weapons Program, by Jonathan Medalia.

CRS Report 95-988. The DOE Laboratories: Issues of DOE Restructuring, Missions, National R&D, and Budget, by William C. Boesman.

CRS Report 93-752 SPR. Department of Energy Laboratories: Capabilities and Missions, by William C. Boesman.

Return to CONTENTS section of this issue brief.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list