TESTIMONY OF SIEGFRIED S. HECKER

DIRECTOR

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

HEARING

of the

SUBCOMMITTEES ON BASIC RESEARCH AND

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 7, 1995

Introductory Remarks

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the record of
this hearing on Future Missions and Governance for the Department of
Energy National Laboratories.

My comments are organized around the five questions asked by the
subcommittee chairmen. In addition I have specifically addressed the
legislation in H.R. 2142, H.R. 1993, H.R. 87 and H.R. 1510.

There are three principal points that I would like to stress today.

1\. I strongly support the importance of defining missions for the DOE
laboratories. At Los Alamos, our core mission for the post-Cold War era
is *reducing the global nuclear danger*, which includes stewardship of
the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile, stemming the spread of nuclear
weapons, dealing with the global nuclear materials problem, and finding
solutions to the nuclear waste and environmental legacies of 50 years of
weapons production. This compelling mission, combined with a continued
focus on fundamental science and selective contributions in civilian R&D
will allow us to make salient contributions to important national
problems.

2\. In addition to a compelling mission, it is imperative that the
laboratories demonstrate cost effective operations to the American
taxpayers. At Los Alamos, we are implementing a workforce productivity
project that will allow us to make the kind of productivity improvements
made in the private sector and called for in the Galvin Task Force
Report. To achieve dramatic reductions in our overhead functions we will
need strong support from the Department of Energy to change the current
oversight and administrative burden. I am encouraged by the
Department\'s response to date.

3\. I do not favor establishing additional commissions or conducting
more studies of the laboratories, nor do I endorse arbitrary size
reductions. I suggest we follow the path outlined in H.R. 2142 to define
the missions of the laboratories and then size them accordingly. In
addition, I believe that abolishing the parent agency, the Department of
Energy, is not a good idea. For over 50 years, the Department and its
predecessor agencies have demonstrated an ability to run some of the
finest scientific laboratories in the world capable of solving important
national problems. Moving the laboratories to other agencies without
defining what their missions are and ensuring that their new home have
an equally strong track record would jeopardize the ability of the
laboratories to contribute to solving important national problems in the
future.

1\. What is the future role of the DOE National Laboratories in the
context of the overall Federally-funded scientific establishment?

Over the past 50 years the DOE laboratories have helped to end World War
II, preserve global peace through nuclear deterrence, and develop and
apply scientific knowledge to important national civilian problems.
After the end of the Cold War and as a result of major international
changes brought about by the emergence of a global economy, technology
has become the most important driver for economic growth \-- which, in
turn, affects our military security and our social infrastructure. I
believe that three crucial research functions continue to be best
performed by the DOE laboratories \-- nuclear weapons defined broadly,
energy and environment, and a sharing of the fundamental research
mission with other federal agencies.

As we look to the future, not only is technology the key driver, but
government must remain a major sponsor for the development of science
and technology and for the diffusion of technology. In retrospect,
defining the proper government role for science and technology during
the Cold War was easy because a formidable adversary provided the
rationale by having defense requirements drive technological needs.
Today, there is little consensus on what the proper government role
should be \-- yet that role will be crucial to the future of our nation.

The nation\'s current technology portfolio is rich, thanks to the
supportive role of the Federal government for 50 years and the
international market dominance that U.S. industry enjoyed for several
decades following World War II, which allowed the nation to develop some
of finest public and private research institutions in the world.
Unfortunately, current Federal and industrial trends threaten the
long-term strength of that portfolio. The changing nature of defense
requirements and the substantial cuts in the defense budget are
dramatically decreasing the benefits of Federal defense R&D investments
to civilian and commercial endeavors. At the same time, global economic
pressures encourage industry to focus its R&D much more closely on
product realization and on closely integrating research with
manufacturing.

While some U.S. firms have reaped the benefits of such strategies and
many have dramatically improved their market position in a cut-throat
international environment, the implications for the long-term economic
health of these companies and the nation remain unclear. As one
indication, corporate investment in long-term research aimed at creating
new knowledge and potential technological breakthroughs is in serious
decline. Industrial research giants have actually reduced their overall
R&D budgets \-- by 33 percent since 1992 in IBM\'s case. Others such as
AT&T Bell Laboratories are reducing research in the physical sciences
while focusing more on information science. In addition, universities
and federal laboratories are being admonished to be more relevant. I am
concerned that the current trends will cause a severe technology
pipeline problem resulting in a shortage of new ideas and technological
breakthroughs in the future.

I believe the international competitive pressures on U.S. industry will
not allow individual firms to emphasize longer-term, high-risk research
in the foreseeable future. Currently, industry funds approximately 60
percent of the total R&D in the United States, while performing 72
percent of the R&D and employing just over 80 percent of all R&D
scientists and engineers (from NSF Report 95-304, *National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 1994*). Given the short-term focus of industry today, it
is crucial that the government continues to support mid-to-long-term
research that provides the necessary scientific underpinnings for
civilian and commercial endeavors. Universities will continue to
emphasize more fundamental research which fits well with their
educational mission. In areas such as biotechnology and computers, such
research is readily adapted to the marketplace, allowing universities to
make significant economic contributions through their research and their
personnel. But, government support of only basic research will not put
the nation in a competitive position to apply that knowledge to solve
key civilian problems and to provide the technology base for
internationally competitive industries in the future.

The Federal laboratories fill an important niche in the nation\'s
scientific enterprise. Their R&D fulfills the immediate needs of the
Federal government and contributes to the national scientific and
technological infrastructure. They also provide a vital part of the
scientific infrastructure for academic and industrial R&D, for example
through collaborative agreements and access to user research facilities.
Their research applications extend beyond those of universities because
the Federal government is itself a customer for a broad range of
technologies. Yet, the laboratories do not produce goods to compete with
industry. Approximately \$25 billion, about one-third of all Federal
R&D, is spent at the 700-plus Federal laboratories. Most of these
laboratories perform very applied functions for their Federal agencies.
Aside from the rather specialized laboratories of the National
Institutes of Health, only approximately 25 of those remaining are major
research laboratories, with many of these being within the Department of
Energy.

Over the past 50 years, the DOE laboratories have maintained a focus on
science while performing mission-driven research for the Department of
Energy and its predecessors. The total R&D budget of the DOE
laboratories is approximately \$6 billion. These laboratories have
excelled in research on problems that require a strong science base, a
multidisciplinary approach, team work, special facilities, and, often,
problems that are large in scale. Some of the laboratories also bring a
vertical integration of research capabilities to such problems and all
bring an attitude of public service. The future of the laboratories must
be closely linked to compelling national missions. The laboratories must
also become part of a strong research network with universities and
industry to help solve pressing national or international problems and
to keep the United States competitive in the international marketplace.

2\. What should be the future missions of the DOE National Laboratories?

I applaud the focus on laboratory missions in H.R. 2142. Without
compelling missions addressing identifiable national needs, the
laboratories will atrophy. Without a focus on science, the laboratories
will lose their flexibility and resilience to respond to changing
national priorities. In spite of the end of the Cold War, national
security missions remain paramount. First, defense is clearly within the
purview of the Federal government and second, technological leadership
is of the utmost importance. However, the reduction in international
military tensions should allow the Federal government to tackle many of
the key civilian problems that are not addressed well by the private
sector alone. H.R. 2142 recognizes the need for the DOE laboratories to
contribute in such areas as energy supply, environmental science and
technology, and fundamental science.

I support these mission areas and I would like to add that it is often
the interplay among technical areas that is critical for progress. More
specifically, I see the principal civilian mission area for the DOE
laboratories to be the integration of energy concerns and environmental
issues, which cannot be isolated from the economic impacts. Therefore,
successful conduct of this mission requires a close collaboration
between the laboratories and industry. A strong focus on fundamental
research is required to ensure the best technology is applied to the
government missions. In addition, the DOE laboratories have historically
provided the next generation of large, complex user research facilities
for the nation\'s scientific community in areas such as particle and
nuclear physics, materials research, biosciences and chemistry.

Mission assignment for the individual laboratories should reflect their
scientific and technical core competencies as well as the ability of the
laboratory to satisfy specific customer requirements. I would like to
caution that the missions of the laboratories not be too narrowly
constrained because breakthroughs are often made at the intersection of
scientific areas or through the application of a scientific approach
from one mission area to the problems of another mission area. In
addition, leveraging the scientific capabilities to several missions
(serving several customers) can be a very cost effective way of
fulfilling the government\'s needs and retaining core competencies at
the laboratories. For example, complex computer simulation and modeling
analyses developed at Los Alamos for Department of Defense military
force deployment have allowed us to introduce the revolutionary approach
of microsimulation to transportation problems in a very timely and
cost-effective manner for the Department of Transportation. Similarly,
the interdisciplinary science capabilities developed for defense
missions, especially in computational science and lasers, at Los Alamos
and Livermore allowed these laboratories to be major proponents and
contributors in the Human Genome Project.

To underscore this point, let me briefly describe how we view our
mission at Los Alamos (a longer description is provided in the
appendix). Over the past 52 years our compelling mission evolved from
developing the first atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project to
providing nuclear weapons technology for deterrence during the Cold War.
We accomplished both successfully. Today, the Cold War cycle of nuclear
weapons development and deployment has ended and our central mission
must reflect the incredible global events of the past six years.

Our vision of the laboratory\'s role for the next decade or two is
embodied in our mission theme of *reducing the global nuclear danger*.
This mission includes stewardship of the nation\'s enduring nuclear
stockpile with full responsibility for the safety, security and
reliability of the weapons without underground nuclear testing;
integrating R&D with enhanced surveillance and the remanufacturing of
weapons as defined by national requirements; keeping nuclear weapons out
of the wrong hands or countering them if they do fall into such hands;
and dealing effectively with the legacy of 50 years of nuclear weapons
production \-- which includes the awesome problem of stabilizing,
securing, storing and disposing of many hundreds of tons of
weapons-usable nuclear materials, disposing of nuclear waste and
cleaning up the environmental legacy.

This mission is every bit as challenging as anything we have done in the
past couple of decades. The three DOE defense laboratories are the
principal, and in some cases the only, institutions with the capability
and the charter to tackle these problems. To perform this mission as
effectively as possible, we must continue to strengthen our scientific
foundations and core technical competencies. This will require a close
relationship with universities to stay close to the best science and it
will require close collaboration with industry to integrate research and
new manufacturing technology. In turn, the capabilities developed for
this mission will allow us to stay at the forefront of many areas of
science which we can apply to some of the complex civilian problems
facing the nation. Cooperative R&D partnerships with industry have
proven to be an especially effective mechanism for supporting our
government mission, while concurrently stretching the time and risk
horizon of industry\'s R&D programs.

The laboratory\'s mission then is on one hand tightly focused on the
theme of reducing the nuclear danger, while on the other hand
sufficiently flexible to allow us to combine with the best of
universities and industry to contribute in civilian areas while
supporting our defense mission. I believe that this multiprogram nature
of the laboratory is key to serving the nation as well in the next 50
years as we have over the past 50.

3\. Is there a need for size and personnel limits for the DOE National
Laboratories?

Size must follow function. It is critical that the mission question be
addressed expeditiously by the Department of Energy for all of its
laboratories to the satisfaction of Congress. Only then, can the right
size of the laboratory complex be determined, from which will follow the
right size for the individual laboratories. I believe that Congress
should not decide on the size of the laboratories. Congress will
naturally be involved in the mission issue through the bills that are
before this committee now and through the annual budget process.

For example, in the nuclear weapons and environmental programs areas,
with clear requirements from the Administration and the Congress, the
Department of Energy is in the best position to decide how to get the
work done. In the past few years it has become quite clear that the DOE
must shift its nuclear weapons program from one that was capacity driven
to one that is capability driven. Without the constant cycle of new
weapons development and deployment and without underground nuclear
testing, the laboratories will have to take a more science-based
approach to nuclear weapons stewardship, develop more scientific
approaches to weapons surveillance and become stewards of many of the
manufacturing technologies. Therefore, the role of the three DOE defense
laboratories will actually increase in the next few years in spite of a
much smaller DOE defense programs budget compared to five years ago.

*Having said all of this, let me add that the laboratories must decrease
the size of their overhead functions. The Galvin Task Force challenged
the DOE and the laboratories to dramatically change the oversight and
governance of the laboratories to allow them to achieve the level of
productivity increases achieved in private industry resulting from
modern quality management approaches.*

We at Los Alamos are rising to that challenge with our Workforce
Productivity Project aimed at increasing the scientific and technical
productivity of the laboratory. We recognize that we must be accountable
to the American taxpayer by providing cost-effective R&D. We have
targeted a decrease of approximately \$60 million in our overhead
functions for this coming year, with additional \$30 million scheduled
for fiscal year 1997. We have learned from the experience of many
private firms that we must not only take out overhead functions, but
also people. Therefore, we are in the process of taking close to 1000
people out of our workforce in the next couple of months. Most of these
will come out of the overhead or support functions at the laboratory.
Let me emphasize my earlier comment that size must follow function. This
effort is not simply a downsizing. It is an initiative to make us more
productive. We will increase the ratio of people doing technical work
compared to the people it takes to support that work. We are on track to
increase that ratio by 15 percent this coming year, and an additional 20
percent the following year.

Naturally, a workforce reduction of this magnitude can be devastating
for the local communities, especially in northern New Mexico where the
Los Alamos National Laboratory represents directly and indirectly over
one-third of the jobs in three of the biggest counties. I want to thank
Congress for the provisions of Section 3161 of the 1995 Defense
Authorization Act which allowed us to offer educational incentives to
affected employees and for the DOE to offer community assistance. We
have received excellent cooperation from the DOE in administering a
voluntary separation program to mitigate the effects of these cuts. I
would also like to encourage your committee to reconsider support of the
science education programs contained in the various DOE bills that
encourage the laboratories to work with local communities to encourage
an interest in science and math education. These programs are critical
in cultivating the scientifically competent workforce that we will need
in the future.

4\. Should there be consolidation or closure of the DOE National
Laboratories? If so, should this occur after mission definition or
concurrently?

Considerations of consolidation and closure of laboratories must also
follow the definition of functions. Major changes should only be made in
conjunction with specific definitions of the missions of the DOE
laboratories.

For example, many suggestions have been made for consolidation of the
functions of the three DOE defense laboratories in light of the end of
the Cold War. In fact, the Galvin Task Force made specific
recommendations to transfer some of the nuclear weapons functions from
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to the other two
laboratories. However, subsequent developments including concerns about
the robustness of stockpile stewardship from the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and President Clinton\'s decision to seek a zero-yield comprehensive
test ban treaty make it clear that this would not be a prudent course of
action. In fact, the challenge of stockpile stewardship for the
indefinite future in an era of no nuclear testing and no new cycle of
weapons replacements is as difficult as any we have faced in decades.
These concerns must now be carefully folded into considerations of
further consolidation. I should add that Los Alamos and Livermore have
already jointly consolidated many of their functions to reflect changing
priorities and significantly reduced budgets.

Similar considerations are in order for the civilian DOE laboratories.
Let me again stress the issue of leverage and synergism of defense and
civilian missions. It would be devastating for the defense laboratories
and harmful to the nation if the defense laboratories lost their
civilian R&D programs because of a consolidation edict. Our core
technical competencies and the approach we take to problem solving allow
us to make very special contributions to civilian problems. Likewise,
some of the civilian laboratories are making important contributions to
the national security arena because of their core technical
competencies. This represents an effective way of leveraging the Federal
R&D investment.

5\. Are there other governance structures, such as corporatization or
privatization, which may better suit the future management of the DOE
National Laboratories?

Personally, I believe that the GOCO (government-owned,
contractor-operated) system of governance devised for the Manhattan
Project during World War II was innovative and enlightened.
Unfortunately, as noted in the Galvin Task Force Report, it has eroded
dramatically over time. I would prefer that we rebuild this system based
on the same fundamental principles, but reflecting the realities of
today\'s administrative world. It will be absolutely imperative that
strong, independent and respected research institutions \-- best
represented by the nation\'s research universities \-- play the
predominant role in operating the laboratories. Without the
contractor\'s appreciation for world-class research, the laboratories
will lose their focus on science. Without that science, they will lose
what has made the DOE laboratory system so successful in achieving its
missions over the past 50 years.

The Galvin Task Force was sufficiently pessimistic about fixing the GOCO
system that it recommended a corporatization scheme to insulate the
laboratories from what it considered the overly prescriptive nature of
government oversight. I view corporatization as an interesting notion
for that reason, but I have not been able to devise a scheme that would
work within the current government structure. Hence, I have turned my
energies to fixing the GOCO system within the Department of Energy. I am
encouraged that DOE officials, from Secretary O\'Leary down to the field
office managers, have taken the concerns of the Galvin Task Force
seriously and that they are working with us to decrease the bureaucracy
and increase our productivity. As I mentioned above, we have initiated
an ambitious workforce productivity project at Los Alamos with
encouragement from the DOE. We are applying some of the best quality
practices we have learned from the private sector. Although we can learn
much from the private sector, I do not believe that the nature of our
government missions allow us to be \"privatized.\"

I would also like to address the proposal for taking the DOE defense
laboratories out of the DOE and having them report to the Department of
Defense. I strongly oppose such a move for several reasons. First, the
1946 Atomic Energy Act deliberately placed atomic weapon development and
stewardship under control of a civilian agency not within the military
chain of control. This separation of powers has served the nation well
for many years and is equally compelling today. I personally feel that I
can discharge my duties to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile is
safe, secure and reliable with greater independence outside of the DoD
structure.

Second, as I pointed out before, the overriding challenge today of
reducing the nuclear danger is much broader than stockpile stewardship.
The nonproliferation issues, the control and disposition of nuclear
materials, and the problems of nuclear waste disposition and
environmental cleanup should not be separated from the stockpile
stewardship functions. Yet, the Pentagon has rather little interest or
experience in some of these areas.

Third, many issues concerning nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power
are strongly intertwined. I have mentioned the problems of managing an
inventory of hundreds of tons of nuclear materials. We must recognize
that the civilian plutonium inventory is already five times as large as
the weapons plutonium inventory of the United States and Russia
combined, and it is growing rapidly. Separation of civilian and defense
nuclear problems into different Federal agencies would represent a step
backward in what already is a major international problem area.

Fourth, the future nuclear mission will require the best scientific
talent the nation has to offer. Placing the DOE defense laboratories
into the custody of the Department of Defense (even under civilian
leadership) will most likely break the synergistic bond that these
laboratories have developed over the years between their defense and
civilian missions, as well as hurt our ability to recruit the best and
the brightest scientists. In the end, losing the affiliation with a
separate civilian Federal agency will not provide the type of scientific
leadership for nuclear weapons stewardship that this nation needs.

I find these objections to be serious obstacles to a transfer of the
laboratories to the DoD. It is interesting to note that Secretary of
Defense, Dr. William Perry, has also gone on record as opposing such a
move.

Specific comments on legislation:

H.R. 2142: Department of Energy Laboratory Missions Act.

I want to thank Congressman Schiff for crafting this very thoughtful
legislation. It goes right to the heart of the issue \-- establishing
missions for the Department of Energy laboratories. As I indicated in my
remarks, a compelling national mission is a necessity for each
laboratory. The bill calls for core missions for the DOE labs in four
important national areas: national security, energy, fundamental
research and environmental science and technology. I strongly support
these as the right general mission areas for the laboratories. I wish to
add a few specific comments.

In national security, H.R. 2142 lays out the significant challenges that
remain in the post-Cold War era. I am encouraged by the inclusion of
fighting the spread of all weapons of mass destruction including
chemical and biological agents. The laboratories\' technical expertise
can help with problems such as biological agent detection. I am also
pleased to see conventional weapons technology and intelligence
assessments specifically included. I would only add specific reference
to the daunting challenge of managing the nuclear materials legacy of
the Cold War. The laboratories must play a significant role in
developing and deploying technologies to stabilize, secure, store and
dispose of plutonium and other weapons-usable materials. The challenge
is even more daunting in the states of the former Soviet Union. The
laboratories should be encouraged to continue their path-breaking work
in helping to secure the Russian nuclear materials inventory. I should
also note that the fate of civilian plutonium is inextricably
intertwined with national security considerations. Hence, the
laboratories can play a significant role in helping to think through and
develop technologies for the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

The civilian mission focus in H.R. 2142 is very good. I want to
underscore the interrelationship between energy, environment and the
economy. These issues cannot be considered in isolation. Because the
potential effects of energy options and environmental considerations on
the economy are significant, it will be crucial to work in partnership
with American industry in these areas. I am very pleased to see the
strong focus on fundamental research in H.R. 2142, both as it underpins
the civilian technologies and to keep the United States preeminent in
all fields of science.

I believe that Sec. 101 (6) encouraging collaboration in partnerships
among the DOE laboratories, other Federal agencies, academe and industry
is a very important recognition of what it will take to have the DOE
laboratories continue to be leading players in the nation\'s science and
technology enterprise in the future. I was especially pleased to see the
encouragement of working with private industry through cooperative
research and development agreements. Over the past few years, the
laboratories have not only demonstrated that this is an effective way of
ensuring the government the maximum return of the taxpayer\'s investment
by partnering with industry in hundreds of collaborations, but we have
found that the benefits that accrue back to the government missions
through what we learn from industry are truly substantial. Hence, we are
well under way of demonstrating the efficacy of this government -
private sector partnering experiment. I appreciate the encouragement
provided in H.R. 2142.

In assigning the missions of the laboratories, I would like to see
Congress give the Department of Energy maximum flexibility within the
overall guidelines of the legislation with the minimum of bureaucracy.
This would allow the DOE to look at the laboratories as a system of
laboratories, but recognizing that it is a system of quite different
individual institutions. I would also caution, as I did in my earlier
remarks, not to push the DOE to define the missions too narrowly because
of the synergism and leverage of multiple missions, particularly the
interplay of defense and civilian missions.

I want to add a final comment on streamlining. The mission assignments
will help to streamline the departmental laboratory system. In addition,
the laboratories are each working on reducing the overhead burden in
their operations. I described the Los Alamos Workforce Productivity
Project above to show how we will significantly streamline our own
laboratory and produce more science and technology for the taxpayer\'s
investment.

H.R. 1993: Department of Energy Abolishment Act.

I have considerable difficulty with Title I of this legislation \-- the
abolishment of the Department of Energy. I believe that the Department
of Energy and its predecessor agencies have served a most valuable
function for the nation over the past 52 years. Recent commemorations of
the Trinity Test and the end of the war with Japan have reminded us of
the crucial role played by the Department\'s laboratories during the war
and in the ensuing Cold War. Similarly, the contributions to the
advancement of science by the Department\'s laboratories are recognized
throughout the world. I believe that three crucial research functions
continue to exist in the post-Cold War world that are best performed by
the Department\'s laboratories: the nuclear weapons mission defined
broadly, the civilian missions in energy and environment, and sharing a
fundamental research mission with other Federal agencies.

I do not see this bill providing a proper home or environment in which
these functions can be performed if the DOE is summarily abolished. In
my remarks, I noted that our new nuclear mission is *reducing the global
nuclear danger*. This mission involves not only stewardship of the
nuclear stockpile, but also nonproliferation, the nuclear materials and
nuclear waste legacy, and the environmental cleanup legacy. These issues
are all closely related through fundamental technological challenges
that are not easily tackled by any single Federal agency, and they would
suffer considerably by being split up among several agencies. I have
already provided my assessment of the problems associated with moving
the defense functions of the DOE to the Department of Defense.

Similarly, the DOE laboratories have very special contributions to make
in the civilian government mission areas of energy and the environment.
These two areas are closely linked and both must be underpinned by solid
fundamental scientific research to offer long-term solutions to key
national problems. Splitting these up into other Federal agencies is a
step backward. Privatizing these functions will jeopardize proper
national solutions to these complex problems that do not lend themselves
to strictly market-driven solutions.

Our nation is experiencing fundamental changes in its science and
technology enterprise. Doing away with an agency that has been the home
to some of the finest science and technology laboratories in the world
and ones that still have compelling national missions without offering
concrete alternatives does not appear to me to be a step in the right
direction.

Most of my comments on Title I also apply to Title II. I do not see the
need for yet another commission on the laboratories. I believe that it
is time that the policy makers decided on a group of missions for the
DOE and charge the Department with assigning these responsibilities to
the laboratories as appropriate. I much prefer H.R. 2142 which calls for
such mission assignments and for the streamlining of the laboratories to
meet the challenges of the future. Such a process should size the
laboratories according to what the Federal needs are and should result
in cutting any unproductive redundancies that may exist.

H.R. 87: Department of Energy Laboratory Facilities Act of 1995.

I concur with the intent of the legislation to make the DOE laboratory
system more cost effective. However, my comments are similar to those
for H.R. 1993. I do not see how one can effectively consider closure or
reconfiguration of the DOE laboratories without first defining the
necessary functions and assigning the appropriate missions to the
Department laboratories. I prefer to follow the process outlined in H.R.
2142 to define these missions and then streamline the laboratories to
achieve those missions.

H.R. 1510: Department of Energy Laboratories Efficiency Improvement Act.

The issue of self-regulation of the Department of Energy with respect to
its laboratories is critical to public support for departmental
activities and has important ramifications on the cost effectiveness of
the laboratories. The Galvin Task Force pointed out that the current
system of oversight is cumbersome and inefficient. The DOE has taken
these recommendations very seriously and established the *Advisory
Committee on External Regulations of Department of Energy Nuclear
Safety*, comprised of national experts in matters of safety, health and
environment, as well as a range of important stakeholders. We have met
with this committee to discuss the pros and cons of external oversight
for the myriad of operations at the laboratory. I suggest that we wait
for the recommendations of this committee before taking any actions.

I should add that I do not understand why the departmental defense
laboratories should be excluded from consideration of external
oversight. I do not believe that our defense mission would preclude the
advisability of some external oversight functions. We believe that one
of the most important aspects that must be considered is a mechanism for
cutting the layers of oversight currently in the system. This problem
exists for all DOE laboratories, regardless of mission.

On the issue of personnel reductions in Sec. 3, I strongly believe that
this legislation is not the right way to size the laboratories. I again
stress that size must follow function. H.R. 2142 provides a proper
mechanism for assigning function through mission assignments. Once that
is complete, the proper size of the laboratories should follow.

Concluding Remarks

I am very pleased with the focus of defining missions for the DOE
laboratories in H.R. 2142. Compelling national missions exist for the
laboratories in the nuclear weapons arena and in the civilian energy and
environmental technologies areas. These missions combined with a focus
on fundamental science can continue to serve this nation well as it
transitions to the post-Cold War era. I believe that these laboratories
will be effectively woven into the fabric of this nation\'s science and
technology establishment by building on the strong networks they have
developed with academe and U.S. industry.