U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–770PDF 2017

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION 

TO REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS 

OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY LABORATORIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

November 18, 2015 

Serial No. 114–51 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEPHAN KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

November 18, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Witnesses: 

Mr. TJ Glauthier, Co-Chair, Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the 

National Energy Laboratories 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement of Mr. TJ Glauthier and Dr. Jared Cohon, Co-Chairs, 

Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories ......................................................................................................... 20 

Dr. Peter Littlewood, Director, Argonne National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 32 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. TJ Glauthier and Dr. Jared Cohon, Co-Chairs, Commission to Review 

the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories .................................... 52 

Dr. Peter Littlewood, Director, Argonne National Laboratory ............................ 55 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness 

of the National Energy Laboratories .................................................................. 58 

Recommendations of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (Testimony of Professors Venkatesh 

Narayanamurti, Laura Diaz Anadon, Gabriel Chan and Dr. Amitai Y. BinNun ........................................................................................................................ 116

Statement submitted by Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 121 

(1) 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION 

TO REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS 

OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY LABORATORIES 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled Recommendations of the 

Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy 

Laboratories. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Good morning, and as I said earlier, welcome to today’s Energy Subcommittee hearing on the Recommendations of 

the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy 

Labs. Today we will hear from the Commission’s co-chairs Mr. TJ— 

is it Glauthier? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Glauthier. 

Chairman WEBER. Glauthier. I can do this—and Dr. Jerry Cohon 

as well as Dr. Peter Littlewood—thank you for having a simple 

name, Doctor—Director of Argonne National Laboratory regarding 

the extent to which the DOE lab system is working well and where 

it can improve. 

Like many topics we discuss in the Energy Subcommittee, this 

one requires a thorough understanding of the details. Of the DOE’s 

17 national labs, ten are stewarded by the Office of Science for 

Basic Research, three by the National Nuclear Security Administration, or the NNSA, to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile, 

and four by their respective DOE applied energy programs. 

Each of the 17 labs has distinct characteristics and capabilities 

that bring a unique set of challenges when it comes to management, oversight, safety and security. For example, this summer I 

along with staff had the opportunity to visit the Savannah River 

National Lab along with some of my colleagues on the committee. 

The Savannah River complex is hundreds of square miles and 

houses critical infrastructure for the Nation’s nuclear deterrent as 

well as facilities to support research subjects ranging from national 

security to environmental management. 

As the witnesses will observe today, 16 of the 17 national labs 

are government-owned, contractor operated, which requires a certain degree of trust between owner and operator for us to achieve 

optimal results. That said, there is one fundamental question relevant to every subject we’re likely to discuss today whether it’s collaborative research with the private sector, technology transfer, 

laboratory-directed research and development, also known as 

LDRD, or safety and security. So the question is how much discretion should the DOE delegate to contractor operators while balancing the need to maintain DOE’s oversight responsibilities? Ultimately we’re debating a risk-reward concept that is familiar to 

Congress because we have to balance similar concerns when legislating federally sponsored research and development. 

On the one hand, providing more discretion to the researchers allows them to pursue the most creative ideas without encumbrances. But on the other hand, too much discretion without effective oversight can lead to waste or misuse of taxpayer funds. And 

as I mentioned before, the 17 labs are very diverse so the approach 

for each lab should be distinct if we’re going to get this right. 

That said, I look forward today to the recommendations of this 

distinguished witness panel as we consider legislative options to 
8 

help the labs reach their full potential. Again, I thank the witnesses for their attendance, and I look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
9 
10 

Chairman WEBER. And with that, I recognize Mr. Alan Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on a very important topic, our national laboratories and 

how to improve them. I’d also like to thank our witnesses for offering their expert recommendations and insights. 

The United States invests more than any other nation in research and development, yet when you put that investment in context as a percentage of our GNP, it becomes much less impressive. 

Our R&D investment is stagnating, while other countries are seizing the opportunity to try to out-innovate the United States. China 

is currently on course to overtake the United States in actual R&D 

dollars spent sometime in the next decade. 

However, the United States has an incredible innovation asset, 

our national labs. In order to take advantage of them, we must try 

to provide the national labs with the necessary resources not only 

to maintain and grow a vast array of facilities and equipment, but 

also to fund the exploratory research that produces results we may 

never have expected. 

Beyond providing resources, the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories has offered a number 

of substantive recommendations in their report, and we’re here to 

talk about them today. This Congress and this Administration can 

act on the Commission’s recommendations quickly and make meaningful improvements to our network of national labs. 

For years the relationship between the Department of Energy 

and the national labs has been a complicated one. The Commission 

has to find the means to try to improve that relationship—that was 

part of your charge—and make it more productive and effective. 

This motivation is apparent in a number of your recommendations, 

and I hope that the Department will take each and every one of 

those to heart. 

Providing laboratories with increased levels of independence and 

freedom is bound to cause some transitional issues. But the result 

could be a more innovative atmosphere that provides scientists the 

freedom to produce groundbreaking outcomes. 

The Commission’s overall message is clear: The national labs are 

unique and irreplaceable. They must be a high priority in our 

budgetary decisions both now and in the future. I certainly will be 

a strong advocate myself on that point and I urge my colleagues 

to join me in that effort. Thank you again to the witnesses for 

being here today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:] 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. I now recognize the 

Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we will hear 

recommendations from the Commission to Review the Effectiveness 

of the National Energy Laboratories. The Director of Argonne National Lab also will testify about his perspective on how the labs 

could operate more effectively. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s jurisdiction 

over the country’s ‘‘scientific research, development, and demonstration’’ makes possible American innovation and competitiveness. The Department of Energy is the largest federal supporter of 

basic research and sponsors 47 percent of federal basic research in 

the physical sciences. 

The Department’s science and energy research infrastructure at 

its 17 national labs and facilities are used by over 31,000 scientific 

researchers each year. The Commission to Review the Effectiveness 

of the National Labs was established by Congress to assess strategic priorities, unique capabilities, size, and accomplishments of 

this research network. 

The Commissioners here today visited national labs, interviewed 

researchers and DOE officials, and compiled a detailed report with 

recommendations of how Congress and the DOE can ensure that 

national labs are able to reach their full potential. 

Last month, the Commission released its final report. It found 

that the DOE lab system provides unique, long-term research capabilities that could not otherwise be reproduced by universities or 

the private sector. However, the Commission also found that the 

labs spend an excessive amount of time to navigate through government red tape created by the Department of Energy. Burdensome operating requirements can delay research projects and make 

it more difficult for researchers to pursue high-value science. 

Congress has limited resources for research and development. We 

have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. To achieve the best return on investment for 

the American people, we must ensure the DOE labs are able to realize their full potential. 

I thank our witnesses for their testimony today, and I look forward to a productive discussion about how we can improve our national labs. A primary goal of this Committee is to ensure that federal research and development is effectively directed. As we consider how to best direct the Department of Energy, we must focus 

on policies that enable breakthrough discoveries. 

With improvements in the effectiveness of the national lab system, we can keep the best and brightest researchers here in the 

United States to continue to explore new ideas. This allows the national labs to provide the foundation for private sector development 

across the energy spectrum, create jobs, and grow the American 

economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
14 
15 
16 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll now introduce 

our witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. TJ Glauthier, CoChair on the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories and President of TJG Energy Associates. Welcome. Mr. Glauthier previously served as the Associate 

Director of OMB and Deputy Secretary and COO of the DOE under 

President Bill Clinton. Mr. Glauthier received his bachelor’s degree 

in mathematics from Claremont McKenna College and his MBA 

from Harvard Business School. 

Our next witness today is Dr. Jared Cohon, Co-Chair on the 

Commission and President Emeritus and university professor at 

Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Cohon previously served as Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board from 1997 to 

2002. Dr. Cohon received his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering 

from the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. in civil engineering from MIT. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, 

to recognize our final witness today, Dr. Peter Littlewood, Director 

of the Argonne National Lab. Congressman? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my pleasure to introduce Dr. Peter Littlewood, Director of Argonne National Laboratory. Dr. Littlewood came to Argonne in 2011 when he was appointed Associate Laboratory Director of Argonne’s Physical 

Sciences and Engineering Directorate. He was appointed as Director last year. He is an internationally respected scientist who holds 

six patents, has published more than 200 articles, and has given 

more than 200 invited talks at conferences, universities, and laboratories. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of London, the Institute of Physics, and the American Physical Society. 

Dr. Littlewood holds a bachelor’s degree in natural sciences and 

a Ph.D. in physics both from the University of Cambridge. I want 

to welcome Dr. Littlewood today. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. In lieu of giving separate statements, Mr. Glauthier has elected to give testimony on 

behalf of himself and Dr. Cohon, I understand. So I now recognize 

Mr. Glauthier for ten minutes to present that testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. TJ GLAUTHIER, 

CO-CHAIR, COMMISSION TO REVIEW 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL 

ENERGY LABORATORIES 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Greyson, other Members and staff of the Subcommittee and 

others here who are interested in the national laboratories. Dr. 

Cohon and I are happy to be here today to discuss the report of 

the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy 

Laboratories. Congress created this Commission in the FY 2014 

Omnibus Appropriations Act. The President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology developed a list of potential nominees, 

and then the Secretary of Energy selected the nine Commissioners 

from that list. The two of us have served as the co-chairs of the 

Commission for almost 18 months, and we’re privileged to serve 

with an outstanding group of Commissioners with strong backgrounds in the science and technology enterprise of the Nation. 
17 

We are pleased that this is a consensus report. We received excellent cooperation and support from the Department of Energy, all 

of the relevant Congressional committees, the White House, the 

National Laboratories themselves, and many others. 

During the course of our work, we visited all 17 of the national 

laboratories, heard from 85 witnesses in monthly public hearings 

in the field and here in Washington and reviewed over 50 previous 

reports on this topic from the past 4 decades. We’ll come back to 

that point in a little bit, 50 reports. 

We have titled our report Securing America’s Future: Realizing 

the Potential of the National Energy Laboratories. Our overall finding is that the national laboratory system is a unique resource that 

brings great value to the country in the four mission areas of the 

Department of Energy: nuclear security, basic science R&D, energy 

technology R&D, and environmental management. 

For example, the national labs have four of the world’s fastest 

supercomputers which are helping the Nation extend the lifetimes 

and safety of our nuclear warheads without nuclear testing. In 

basic science, their world-class particle accelerators, light sources, 

and other user facilities host over 30,000 researchers every year 

from our universities and industry partners. And in energy technology R&D, the labs have played an important role in helping to 

develop the innovations that have led to the Nation’s shale gas revolution and surge in wind and solar energy. 

However, our national lab system is not realizing its full potential. Our Commission believes that can be changed. We provide 36 

recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will help the 

labs to become more efficient and effective and have even greater 

impact, thereby helping secure America’s future in the four mission 

areas of the Department. 

We’d like to highlight a few of our major findings and recommendations and then would be happy to address any others of 

particular interest to you. 

Our most fundamental conclusions deal with the relationship between the Department of Energy and the national labs. We find 

that the trusted relationship that is supposed to exist between the 

Federal Government and its national labs is broken and it’s inhibiting performance. We note that the problems come from both 

sides, from the labs and the Department of Energy. 

We want to be clear that this situation is not uniform across all 

of the labs. In particular, the labs that are overseen by the Office 

of Science generally have much better relationships with the Department of Energy than do those in the other program offices. 

Many of our recommendations address this fundamental problem. We conclude that the roles need to be clarified and reinforced, 

going back to the formal role of the labs as federally funded research and development centers for the Department of Energy. 

Under this model, the two parties are supposed to operate as trusted partners in a special relationship with open communication. 

DOE should be directing and overseeing its programs at a policy 

level, specifying what its programs should achieve, and the labs, for 

their part, should be responsible for determining how to carry them 

out and then executing those plans. In doing so, the labs should 

have more flexibility than they do now to implement those pro-
18 

grams without needing as many approvals from DOE along the 

way. In return, of course, the labs must operate with transparency 

and be fully accountable for their actions and results. 

This flexibility, in our view, should be expanded significantly in 

areas such as the ability to manage budgets with fewer approval 

checkpoints; managing personnel compensation and benefits; entering into collaborations with private companies, including small 

businesses, without having each agreement individually approved 

and written into the lab’s M&O contract with DOE; building office 

buildings on sites that are not nuclear, not high hazard, and not 

classified; conducting site assessments that are relied upon by DOE 

and others to minimize redundant assessments; and sending key 

personnel to professional conferences to maintain DOE’s work in 

leading-edge science and for their professional development. 

In the Congressional charge to us, we were also asked to examine whether there is too much duplication among the DOE labs. We 

looked into this in detail and have included two recommendations 

in this area. The first regards the NNSA laboratories, the nuclear 

weapons laboratories, where we conclude that it is important to the 

Nation’s nuclear security that the two design laboratories’ capabilities continue to be maintained in separate and independent facilities. 

The second recommendation in this area regards the way the Department manages through the life cycle of R&D topics. In our 

view, they do a good job at encouraging multiple lines of inquiry 

in the early, discovery stages of new subjects, and they’re good at 

using expert panels and strategic reviews to manage mature programs. However, at the in-between stages, the Department needs 

to assert its strategic oversight role earlier and more forcefully to 

manage the laboratories as a system in order to achieve the most 

effective and efficient overall results for the Nation. 

We want to acknowledge the progress that currently is being 

made in some of these and other areas by the current Secretary of 

Energy and the current Directors of the National Laboratories. We 

encourage them to continue their efforts, and we encourage the 

subcommittee and others in Congress to support them and future 

administrations in this direction. 

Let us turn to our recommendations for how we believe Congress 

can help to improve the performance of the national labs. We would 

like to cite four here in our opening statement. First, we conclude 

that the laboratory-directed research and development, LDRD as 

the Chairman mentioned earlier, is vitally important to the labs’ 

ability to carry out their missions successfully, and we recommend 

that Congress restore the cap on LDRD funding to the functional 

level that it was historically up until 2006. 

Second, to support strong collaborations between businesses and 

the national labs, Congress may need to clarify that the annual operating plans that we recommend should provide sufficient authority for the labs to enter into CRADAs and other agreements under 

the Stevenson-Wyler Act and the fast-track CRADA Program. 

Third, we urge Congress to continue to recognize the importance 

of the role of the national laboratories in building and operating 

user facilities for use by a wide range of researchers in universities, 

other federal agencies, and the private sector. 
19 

Fourth, there does seem to be a serious shortfall in funding for 

facilities and infrastructure at the national labs. However, the 

scope and severity of that shortfall are not well defined. We recommend that the Congress work closely with Department of Energy and with OMB to agree first, upon the size and nature of the 

problem, and then upon a long-term plan to resolve it, through a 

combination of additional funding, policy changes, and innovative 

financing. 

In the interest of time, let us finish by highlighting our final recommendation. We found that in the past 4 decades there have been 

over 50 previous commissions, panels, and studies of the national 

labs. It is our view that Congress and the administration would be 

better served by some sort of standing body of experienced people 

who could provide perspective and advice on issues relating to the 

national labs without having to create new commissions or studies 

every time. Such a group could potentially be housed at the National Academies or report to the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology or be somewhere else that would provide 

the independence that Congress requires. 

On behalf of our nine commissioners, we want to thank you for 

this opportunity to serve the country on this important commission. 

Dr. Cohon and I would also like to acknowledge the great work of 

our staff at the Science and Technology Policy Institute led by 

Susannah Howieson and Dr. Mark Taylor who is with us today. We 

hope that our work will be helpful and are happy to answer questions and to discuss our findings and recommendations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gauthier and Dr. Cohon follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Glauthier. I now recognize Dr. 

Littlewood for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER LITTLEWOOD, 

DIRECTOR, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Thank you very much. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson, Members of the Committee, my own Congressman Lipinski, thank you for the opportunity to share my 

thoughts about the findings and recommendations of the Commission. 

Let me start by acknowledging the Commission for performing a 

thorough analysis. Commission members are really to be commended for the time and effort they spent on examining all 17 national laboratories’ missions, capabilities, operations, and challenges. It was a very thorough investigation, and we’re grateful for 

that. 

My fellow lab directors and I are pleased with the Commission’s 

assessment that the laboratories provide great benefit to the country, that we serve not only the DOE mission but also support the 

broader science and technology community and help fulfill the security needs of the Nation. 

At the Secretary of Energy’s request, we are collectively preparing a detailed response for his eyes, and we have actually already submitted that to him in the last day or two and I’m sure 

he will want to share that with you in due time. But following 

many discussions that the lab directors and I have had together, 

I believe that my colleagues broadly endorse the major recommendations of the report. We commit to wholeheartedly engage 

on our part to work with DOE to make the necessary changes to 

further increase the value of the national laboratories. 

In the testimony that follows, I will give you mostly my perspective as Argonne Director, but as I say, I think I broadly represent 

the views of my fellow lab directors. 

The recommendations made by the Commission demonstrate certainly that they heard our feedback and ideas. We are gratified in 

particular by what I see as a prevailing theme on which I would 

like to focus my remarks today, the theme of reintroducing acceptable risk-taking into the lab enterprise, a theme which was already 

touched on by the Chairman in his opening remarks. 

Risk can seem like a negative word, and I would agree that risk 

is negative in the realm of safety, but frankly, safety is the only 

area in which I would agree we should never take a risk. 

What has developed within the DOE and its laboratories over 

time and in response to various events is increasing attention to 

detail and attempts to reduce uncertainty. This approach isn’t unexpected and not necessarily all bad, wishing to manage risk in a 

multibillion-dollar institution like DOE is of course reasonable. But 

we’ve reached a point where we punish failure rather than rewarding success, and we’re concerned that we’ve traded innovation for 

regulation. 

So reinvigorating the government-owned, contractor-operated, or 

GOCO, model as recommended by the Commission essentially 

helps us hit the reset button. When DOE gives the laboratories and 

their contractors the authority to operate with more discretion, we 
28 

are empowered to take the kind of risks that are imperative for scientific discovery and for technological innovation. In return, we accept the need for transparency and accountability. 

So to chart new frontiers, laboratories must take risks in breaking down barriers. We must work across scientific disciplines, between fundamental and applied science, between research institutions, and between funding agencies. This means overlap, sometimes messy. 

A fear of supporting what might be presented as duplicative research by different agencies or in different institutions is now resulting in challenges in building the pipeline from fundamental research to product. The large user facilities of the labs support communities of researchers who lie well outside DOE’s own mission 

space, but just in medicine that intersection has supported in the 

past such important advances as proton radiotherapy, many major 

drug developments, the human genome initiative, and the artificial 

retina. 

And just as surely as we must risk failing, we must risk succeeding and being able to handle the new challenges prompted by 

that success. Success in science and technology inevitably leads to 

positive but sometimes disruptive change. 

Perhaps no other endeavor we undertake at our labs better exemplifies the need for accepting risk than the LDRD Program. We 

welcome the Commission’s recommendation to restore the cap on 

LDRD to six percent unburdened or equivalent. 

Investment in LDRD has enabled virtually every major Argonne 

initiative including the original Advanced Photon Source and its 

upgrade, the Leadership Computing, the Joint Center for Energy 

Storage Research, four Energy Frontier Research Centers, advanced nuclear fuel cycle and reactor modeling/simulation 

processings. LDRD is peer-reviewed and extraordinarily competitive. 

So to conclude, I want to reiterate that I largely support the 

Commission’s report, as it speaks to the ideas and feedback that 

we have shared. The recommendations, when implemented, will 

help create a working atmosphere to which the labs and I believe 

DOE as well aspire, an environment where we are empowered to 

take risks leading to new scientific discoveries in support of critical 

mission areas for the Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Littlewood follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Littlewood. The Chair now 

recognizes himself for five minutes for questioning. I guess this is 

to Mr. Glauthier and Dr. Cohon. My first question is for both of the 

co-chairs. Would you all for us please identify the most recognizable inefficiencies between the DOE and its Science and Energy 

Labs? And when you do that, please explain to us how they affect, 

how these issues affect research on a daily basis? Mr. Glauthier. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the inefficiencies that we noticed the most are the transactional oversight, the amount of approvals required, the amount of investigations and inspections and the like and that there’s a lot of time 

spent on both sides, both at the Department and in the laboratories 

on these processes that is detracting from the time spent on the research mission that the laboratories carry out. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Cohon? 

Dr. COHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would add just for emphasis something that Mr. Glauthier mentioned in our testimony 

and that’s this issue of duplication. As he explained, duplication is 

desirable early on as a new field of science is emerging. Having 

multiple laboratories trying out different approaches is a good 

thing. But there comes a point where the science becomes clearer 

and a particular approach seems like the—emerges as the preferred one. We need, we all need DOE to assert itself more forcefully at that moment so we don’t waste time and money on multiple approaches. 

So what we’ve urged in our recommendation is that DOE look for 

that opportunity and intervene more forcefully in that process. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Littlewood, I’m going to come to you, but 

before I do, I want to go back to Mr. Glauthier. You said in your 

opening statement I think you had studied 50 reports? Was that 

right? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, that’s right. We think we’re report number 

56. 

Chairman WEBER. Number 56? Okay. And so have you seen a 

trend through that timeframe of the detail, getting bogged down 

into more and more of exactly what you’re talking about? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, I think for the last 20 years going back to 

the Galvin Commission in the mid-’90s, that these recommendations have been very similar, and there’s been a lot of concern 

about the transactional oversight or the amount of micromanagement that’s gone on. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Cohon, did you wish to weigh in on that? 

Dr. COHON. No, sir. 

Chairman WEBER. Smart man. Dr. Littlewood, I’m going to come 

to you. How do you think these suggestions apply to your laboratory? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Well, let me make a brief comment about transactional oversight. Of course, we’re not opposed to oversight. Oversight is important. We must demonstrate that we’re using the taxpayer money well. But just a small comment. In 2014 we had four 

significant findings from audits. All of those were found by internal 

audits. We had 12 internal audits, 50 assessments and audits that 

came from outside. 
33 

So we spend a lot of time on trying to make sure that we do a 

good job ourselves. And I will say that the attempt to bring in the 

contractor assurance system which has come in the past few years 

and was commented on in the report I think is a very good idea. 

I will say that there seems to be resistance within the system to 

bringing that to the stage that it was needed. 

So that’s one comment. And then to comment about the competitive nature of science, I again agree, and I think there is some 

movement in the right direction. So firstly, science is a competitive 

discipline. That’s one reason that the United States is so good at 

it. And so the fact that we use competition in the early stages to 

drive discovery is necessary. And then I think the ability to bring 

that together at the point where a program can be constructed and 

driven is something that has emerged strongly as a focus of the 

current Secretary in the past few years through ideas such as the 

Big Idea Summits, working together in cross-lab groupings, and it’s 

something that the lab directors support. I think that wasn’t a 

characteristic of activities 5 or ten years ago. 

Chairman WEBER. You said in your comments, Dr. Littlewood, 

that you look forward to the theme of reintroducing acceptable 

risk-taking into the lab enterprise. I think that’s what you said. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. I’m reading from them. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Yes, that’s correct. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Would you elaborate on that? And then 

how do you define success based on what kind of, quote, failure and 

risk-taking? I’ll leave that to you. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Right. So I think that—well, sometimes actually you must risk success. So we’re often concerned about doing 

things in slightly uncharted areas because the result of success 

would be a project that was successful perhaps slightly outside the 

DOE mission space. We’re very conscious, however, of not doing 

things that could produce failure. Scientific failure is something 

that one should expect occasionally as a function exercise. When 

you fail, you know that you should stop doing that and find ways 

of doing something else. 

I’m concerned that we actually have too many programs which 

can neither succeed, nor can they fail, and therefore they tend to 

stagnate. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Thank you. I’m reminded about Thomas Edison’s quest to invent the light bulb on his thousandth try, 

and his staffer said doesn’t that just frustrate you? It’s a thousand 

failed attempts. He said what are you talking about? We now know 

a thousand ways it won’t work. We’re closer than ever. 

So the Chair now recognizes Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. I’d like to conduct a brief high-level, 

somewhat abstract discussion that is untethered from any specific 

recommendations that you made. 

Why do we have national labs instead of competitive grants open 

to everyone? Mr. Glauthier? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. I’m sorry, Mr. Grayson. I didn’t quite understand the question. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Why do we have a national lab system instead of 

taking the same amount of money and dispersing it through DOE 
34 

to competitive grants open to everybody, presumably the best offeror? Why do we do it the way we do it? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Well, I think what we’ve tried to recognize is 

there’s a role for the national laboratories in this system of research enterprise for the country that is important and that you 

can have a lot of very successful research done in the university 

community, for example, by individual investigators, principal investigators, who compete for grants of the type you’ve mentioned. 

At some stage you need to have large-scale programs that are complex interdisciplinary and that extend over longer periods of time. 

And those in particular are places where the national laboratories 

can house those projects. There’s still a degree of competition 

among the funding programs at the Department and elsewhere. 

One of the things we recommend in our report is there should 

be much better use of peer-review groups so that as programs exist 

and are funded over time, there are—the experts in the field are 

brought together from time to time from the university community, 

industry, and the other labs to review the work and to make sure 

that it is the appropriate work that the Federal Government should 

be supporting and that it should be done there at the labs as opposed to done in the nature of grants that would be funded elsewhere. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Cohon, go ahead. 

Dr. COHON. Yeah, please. I’d like to add to what TJ has said. For 

me—well, let’s take the weapons labs and put them aside because 

they clearly have a reason for being which is unique. But to the 

way you put your question which I like very much, I have a very 

large number of colleagues who would say, yes, that’s exactly the 

right question. All the money should come to us and not to the 

labs. 

I think that the reason for being in the first instance, the nonweapons labs, are the user facilities. These truly are unique. They 

could not be mounted or maintained by any single university that 

I know of. Universities collaborate together but not that well and 

not that effectively, which they surely would have to do to maintain 

these facilities. So for me that’s the foundation. 

Having created those facilities and maintaining them, that naturally first of all requires scientists and technical people to maintain 

them but also attracts to them world-class scientists to use them 

and to support them. 

So I think that’s the most compelling answer to your question. 

But I don’t want in any way want to take away from what Mr. 

Glauthier said. I think he’s absolutely right. If you look at the continuum of R&D from basic research to the marketplace, the labs do 

occupy a niche somewhere between universities and companies. 

They are able to do these large long-term collaborative projects 

that Mr. Glauthier mentioned. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Littlewood? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Thank you. Yeah, I of course do agree with everything we’ve heard, so I don’t want to expand on those. But I’ll 

add one further thing where I think the labs could play a big role 

and that’s actually by bringing together consortia that often involve 

universities and industry to work on large, long-term problems that 

are necessary to do that. You know, as an example, just a local one 
35 

for Argonne, we run the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research 

which is a $25 million a year program with DOE that involves a 

collaboration between five labs, four major universities sort of as 

partners for companies and many other academics. It would be 

very difficult to bring that kind of collaboration together from the 

vantage of being a university academic. And I can tell you that because I’ve been one and tried to do that kind of thing, and it isn’t 

so easy from that side. 

So I think that’s another key role I suspect for the labs. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Glauthier, briefly, since I’m almost out of time 

here, why have contractor-operated facilities instead of government-operated facilities directly managed by DOE? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. The contractor-operated facilities, which are the 

majority, 16 of the 17, have a very good record of having been able 

to attract and retain top-quality scientists and to be able to manage that effectively. 

Certainly there are government laboratories at not only DOE but 

elsewhere. Our sense is that the quality of the science has been 

better at these run by M&O contractors, consistently better. 

There’s good research at the other labs but not as consistently high 

quality. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thanks. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Littlewood, if I understood your response 

to his question about the research being done at the labs to the 

universities, did you say that the universities can learn something 

from you all but you all have never really learned anything from 

the universities? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I don’t think—— 

Chairman WEBER. I’m just—— 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. —I’d quite put it that way. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. I was just double-checking. The Chair 

now recognizes the two young gentlemen from Illinois. Would you 

like to—would the gentleman from Illinois like to introduce them? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Glad to have some very important staff with me 

today, my son, Kaden, and my son, Kole. So I’m glad they’re joining 

me in Washington, D.C. 

Chairman WEBER. Welcome, gentlemen. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. Thanks, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I really do appreciate your work so much, 

and Director Littlewood, I especially want to say good to see you, 

always good to see you. And certainly I love to tell the story of 

what great things are happening in Illinois with our great laboratories, Argonne and Fermi and research university. So thank you. 

Dr. Cohon and Mr. Glauthier, we’d also like to thank you for all 

your work your Commission did after the cromnibus. I know you’ve 

both been very available to my staff with the National Laboratories 

Caucus as well in both the House and the Senate. I certainly share 

your goal of finally implementing some of the changes which we 

seem to be rehashing every few years. 

A little over two years ago, this subcommittee held a hearing 

looking at the ITAF study on the labs done by Heritage and the 

Center for American Progress, certainly very bipartisan groups. 

Last year, Brookings put together a good study looking at ways to 
36 

better utilize the labs’ tech transfer capabilities to spur local and 

regional economic development. 

So I see your concern and agree with it about the number of 

studies which have been showing many of the same things over 

and over again. I also want to see that some of these things finally 

get acted upon. 

In the last two Congresses the House has passed my legislation 

to free up the labs to do the work without unnecessary burdensome 

oversight. Some of the most important provisions in my bill freed 

up the ability of the labs to be able to enter into ACT agreements, 

gave signature authority for tech transfer agreements under $1 

million to lab directors, and allowed for some early stage proof-ofconcept work to be done with tech transfer funds. 

In the Statement of Administration Policy on this year’s COMPETES’ reauthorization, the President’s Senior Advisor characterized these sections as reducing oversight in a way that would increase the exposure of the federal government to risk and liability 

while also conflicting with the execution of the DOE mission. 

Dr. Cohon and Mr. Glauthier, I wondered, this seems to me to 

be the lack of trust you mentioned throughout your report. I wonder if you could explain to the Committee how the M&O contracts 

do and perhaps should work? It also seems to me that a lab would 

be hesitant to stray from the DOE mission risking the loss of their 

contract which comes under review every few years. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, Congressman, happy to respond to this. 

And we think that your legislation actually is directed in the right 

way, the principal elements of it, to make it easier for partnerships 

between the laboratories and the private sector or others, and our 

recommendations are very consistent with that. 

I think the key element is that it’s not just letting the labs free 

to go off and do all those things. But our recommendation is that 

there ought to be an annual operating plan at the beginning of 

each year where the government and the laboratory agree on the 

scope and scale of the things that laboratory’s going to do for the 

coming year. And that would include the amount of cooperative 

work that they tend to do with industry, and they’re going to describe the nature of that work. 

Let’s say a laboratory like Argonne is going to do $50 million 

worth of cooperative work with various industries, a lot of it consistent with what they’ve done in previous years. And once they’ve 

had that discussion and they’ve agreed with the government about 

that, then the laboratory ought to be free to carry it out. And as 

long as the agreements with companies would be consistent with 

that plan and within that scope, they ought to be able to go ahead 

and do it exactly as you described in your legislation. 

But there doesn’t seem to be that predicate, that description, discussion up front, an understanding of what the areas are in which 

the laboratories are going to do this sort of work. But the key is 

the laboratories should be responsible. It does have to be transparent as it goes forward. It has to report what it’s doing. It has 

to share that information with the Department and be accountable 

for the way it’s done. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Dr. Cohon or Director Littlewood, do you have 

any thoughts on that? 
37 

Dr. COHON. I would only add to echo what we say in our report 

that the DOE should be identifying what needs to be done in collaboration with the laboratories and then leave it to the labs to figure out how to do it, which is again, very consistent with your legislation. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. Dr. Littlewood? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Yeah. I mean, let me actually broadly say that 

from Argonne’s perspective, our interactions with the Office of 

Science are quite positive often in many regards associated with 

this. But I think I’d like very much to build on the number of challenges you address, somehow getting rid of the sand and grit out 

of the works, in particular, being able to deal with industry. Sometimes we find it easier to deal with big companies because they 

have about the same number of lawyers as we do. When we want 

to be fast and nimble and help small companies take things to market, you know, we need more rapid methods of doing this. And I 

think many of the labs are looking for experiments to do this. 

They’re being supportive through DOE by for example the invention of the Office of Tech Transfer. But I think that they can be 

further engaged by the kind of legislation you’re pushing. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. Five minutes goes by way too fast. I 

have a couple other questions. If it would be all right if we could 

follow up in writing with you all, that would be great. But with 

that, Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time I don’t have. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I recognize the other gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for 

Director Littlewood. As you know, I’m very interested in ways that 

can help the national labs bring new energy technologies to market 

faster, in general, the whole idea of improving technology transfer. 

I was pleased to see the recommendation 25 in the Commission’s 

report mentioned the need to continue to look for ways to improve 

the technology transfer process. 

I know that Argonne puts a lot of emphasis on the commercialization portion of their mission. So I want to ask, does Argonne 

have challenges in taking technologies to market that we might be 

able to alleviate or lessen with Congressional action? Are there any 

recommendations you would make to us? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Thank you very much, Congressman. As you remarked, it’s really an important part of that business to try and 

take technologies to market. 

What I’d like to see in fact is an expansion of what I would call 

the user facility concept in this space. So we’re used at Argonne to 

having 5,000 users who come from all to use our advanced photon 

source, but we also have large and embedded facilities of the labs 

that can be really important in taking technology to market, and 

we’d like to find ways of making them more accessible. 

So sometimes those facilities have been funded by DOE. Sometimes they’ve been funded by different pieces of DOE, and we found 

for example that we’ve kind of got an unwieldy internal portfolio 

of activities and sometimes difficulty bringing those together in 

kind of one-stop shopping for any customer who is interested in our 

business. And DOE is helpful about this, but sometimes DOE looks 

over its own shoulder at duplication. 
38 

So I’ll give you one small example. We have a project that I’m 

very proud of which is to develop better combustion chemistry for 

engines, and it goes all of the way from fundamental chemistry all 

the way up to design of engines. That program is funded by four 

different pieces of DOE. Because of concern about duplicative research and duplicative oversight, those pieces of DOE look at the 

boundary between the areas they’re funding and are very concerned about overlaps. If you want to go from tech transfer, you 

want to take something from fundamental science all the way 

through to the market, you must engage in overlaps. 

So I think Congress could help by putting in language which is 

more sophisticated about duplicative research, overlaps that would 

in fact encourage overlaps and enable things to get to market more 

quickly. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I wanted to use the rest of my time to 

move onto sort of reiterating and getting more from all of you 

about the duplication of research issue that Mr. Glauthier had 

mentioned. I know that the report also states that most duplication 

that occurs within the R&D programs of the labs is intentional, 

managed, and beneficial to the Nation. And I want to make sure 

that everyone here understands that this is not government waste 

that we’re talking about here. 

Can you explain a little better, Mr. Glauthier, Dr. Cohon, why 

well-coordinated independent replication of research activities is 

valuable to the scientific process in national labs? And if there’s 

anything that Dr. Littlewood would want to throw in there—I just 

wanted to make sure that we all understand what this is really 

about. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Sure. Let me start, Congressman. The duplication if you will at the NNSA labs, the weapons labs, is quite different than that of the others. So let me start with those. And 

there we did state very clearly that the duplication or the fact that 

we have design capabilities of nuclear weapons programs for the 

country—you have two different labs—is very important to the 

country. We have seen the benefits of the two different groups of 

weapons designers being able to validate their designs or to be able 

to test those against each other. And that’s a specialized case 

where it’s a very important one for us. 

The other types of duplication if you will are really a misnomer. 

For the most part, the work that’s being done is very similar but 

it’s different. The accelerators is one of the examples, light sources 

or other forms of accelerators that the government has funded and 

operates at different science laboratories around the country. Each 

one is a light source all right, but they’re different. There are different degrees of X-rays, different speeds and hardness, different 

kinds of applications. And so researchers end up using those for 

different types of research. And our group was quite satisfied as we 

went through this that the processes that the Office of Science uses 

in this case to bring together experts to really examine that and 

be sure as they go over the process of building new facilities or 

maintaining these is one that is serving the right needs of the 

country and not duplicating science. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Cohon? 
39 

Dr. COHON. I’d like to support and join the comments that Dr. 

Littlewood made before about the nature of science and its competitive nature. He’s absolutely right about that. One of the major reasons that the United States is such a leader in research is because 

of the competitive nature of our research enterprise. So allowing for 

and managing that competition among the laboratories is actually 

a very good thing for the Nation. And the key is the management 

part of it and understanding at what point the competition should 

end and we should move on. 

And I also want to agree with Dr. Littlewood’s comment before 

that this administration of the Department has done quite well in 

this regard, and there’s been very good progress. So it’s not a 

waste. In fact, it’s a very key attribute of the national lab system. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting 

us go a little bit further. But I think that was a good explanation 

we needed to hear. Thank you. Yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, I’m going to take you a little further if 

the gentleman would—little help over here. Dr. Littlewood, you had 

six patents, is that correct? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Uh-huh. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. And so when you went through that 

process of—I guess that was research and development of something. You would say that there’s steps, identifiable steps, one, two, 

three, four, I don’t know. Maybe not like Edison with over a thousand but a certain number of steps. And I think what I hear you 

all saying is if you’ve got two processes going on at the same time, 

maybe somebody does a better step three than your process has. 

And so in that regard, the taxpayers come out because we actually 

get the best bang for our buck. The entire process becomes better. 

Does that make sense? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I agree entirely. That’s very well put. So the 

process of scientific invention and tech to market is many things. 

Chairman WEBER. Sure. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Lots have to be joined up. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. And there you have it exactly right. They 

must—— 

Chairman WEBER. I appreciate it, and thank you all for your indulgence. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very interesting topic, especially to me. The Chairman took—we took a 

CODEL not too long ago to the Savannah River Lab which my father actually worked at right after World War II. The first time I 

had visited there. But I’m also on the Homeland Security Committee. So the research and development and everything that goes 

on within the Department of Energy for our national security is of 

exceptional interest. But what really interested me is we share a 

lot in common after reading recommendation number two. We all 

agree that overregulation is not healthy for competition and for development, for innovation. And I think you identified that having 

a trusting relationship that is free from expensive, burdensome administrative oversight from DOE would be very helpful. And I appreciate that. 
40 

Obviously oversight of sensitive national security research is very 

important. We need to have a level of oversight. We need to make 

sure that we control what we’re doing, that the intellectual properties, that it stays within the defense community. 

But the domestic, non-defense related research and development, 

I think we agree—maybe we can reduce the regulatory burden on 

these. So Mr. Glauthier, and I’d also like to hear from Mr. Cohon 

as well. When considering legislative improvements for the national labs and the amount of DOE oversight, should Congress 

make a clear distinction between national security and domestic research? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. That’s a very interesting question. I think both 

of them need the effective oversight that makes sure that the work 

is being done in a way that’s consistent with the policies of the Nation. Frankly, we found that the planning and oversight processes 

in the weapons program were not as effective, are not as effective, 

as those in the Office of Science programs for example. And we recommended that some of the procedures being used in the Office of 

Science ought to be adapted and used in the other areas as well. 

The peer review processes in particular, sometimes the weapons 

programs I think use the excuse that their — that the classified 

activities restrict the number of people who can participate in peer 

reviewed and the like. But our feeling is that there are ways to 

make those peer review processes more effective and use the discipline that comes from that to make the whole program more successful, more effective, and to manage projects in a way that brings 

them in on schedule, on budget and the like at the performance 

levels of her plan. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Dr. Cohon? 

Dr. COHON. I have nothing to add to that. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Dr. COHON. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. One last question on this for you two—what 

can Congress do to facilitate this, reduce the red tape? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. That’s a great question. The Department of Energy actually has the authority to do most of the things that we 

recommend if they are willing to do it. So one of the aspects is that 

the Congress can be supportive, can indicate to the Department 

that you really want them to restore this kind of working relationship. Another key element I think goes back to what Dr. Littlewood 

talked about which is risk acceptance. A lot of the rules that the 

Department have been put in place because something went wrong, 

and people put a new rule in place and said, well, we’re never 

going to have that problem again. Okay, but you’ve got a lot of 

other problems. Over time it becomes a very cumbersome working 

environment. 

I think we have to recognize that things will go wrong. If you 

have 55,000 people working at the national labs, there will be some 

mistakes. We have to make sure we manage the risk side so that 

really serious mistakes don’t happen but that smaller errors can. 

An example is property management. We’ve got rules for tracking 

laptop computers that mean they have to inventory those and find 

every one of those at every lab every year. And there’s a point of 

diminishing returns. Some of those laptop computers are so old 
41 

they’re not worth tracking down. You ought to decide that at some 

point you draw the line and say, okay, we’ve gotten 98 percent of 

them. There are just rules of that sort. I think Congress can be 

supportive of a risk acceptance, a risk management approach to the 

way the Department is run. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Dr. Littlewood, would you like to add 

anything? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I think I’d just echo that. I think we don’t have 

a risk-based management approach of the labs, and that’s something that we would really benefit from. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman 

from California is recognized, Mr. Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for those who participated in the study, and also I want to thank Mr. Littlewood for 

coming here and representing a national laboratory as well. I am 

proud to represent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as 

well as Sandia National Laboratory, approximately 8,000 lab employees in our district. A good chunk of them are scientists. And 

so when we think about the lab community, 17 different laboratories, 55,000 people, Dr. Littlewood, could you just very briefly describe to me approximately how many of them are scientists, people 

with advanced degrees or even a bachelor of science degree or beyond? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I’m not sure I could say that for all of the labs 

but I think probably reflecting your labs, too. I mean, at Argonne, 

we have 3,500 employees, 1,500 of them have advanced degrees. I 

think that’s probably a common proportion across the labs. And 

many of those of course who don’t have advanced degrees will have 

bachelor’s degrees and working this. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And Dr. Littlewood, to get an advanced degree 

today or even 10 or 15 years ago, you agree it’s quite an investment 

in one’s future? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Yeah, I agree. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And one challenge that I have come across talking to our lab employees at home is that because the labs are operated as government-owned, contractor-operated, these scientists 

who have made six-digit investments in their future with the student load debt that they’ve taken on do not qualify for the public 

student loan forgiveness program. Are you aware of that? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I was aware of that, yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And so my experience—and maybe you could tell 

me if it’s different at Argonne or other national laboratories—is 

that these scientists are, you know, for all intents and purposes, 

they are committed to serving our government. They are career scientists. They’re likely not going to leave, but they’re ineligible for 

a program that other federal employees are eligible for. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. That’s correct. So you’re quite right to say that, 

you know, we have truly dedicated staff. We of course have lots of 

very close collaborations with Livermore and Sandia. So we know 

them very well. And these are staff who are dedicated to public 

service. They’re not officially federal employees. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you think that it would help you recruit, attract, and retain these bright scientists if we were able to make 
42 

them eligible for the public student loan forgiveness program? And 

I’d open that up also to the other participants as well. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I mean, I’ve not thought in detail about it, but 

it seems very clear. I will say that the labs have some concern 

about recruitment over the years, particularly my colleagues who 

run weapons labs. It’s very important for them to be able to recruit 

actually very substantial numbers of scientists and in particular, 

those who are able to hold a clearance. And so we’re actually collectively very concerned about pipeline issues and anything that we 

can do to bring people into this area of public service is something 

I would support. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you. And maybe the other witnesses who studied in our national laboratories, is this an issue 

that we should look at opening up and making lab employees who 

are not today eligible, making them eligible for—in the program, 

just so you know, if you make 120 payments serving the public, 

maybe as a teacher, maybe as a prosecutor, maybe as a public defender, 120 payments, the balance of your student loans is forgiven. 

But lab employees don’t qualify. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Congressman, I think it’s a very interesting proposal and not one that we studied in our work. But we did look at 

the issue about attracting and retaining, you know, really qualified 

people for these laboratories and particularly the weapons labs, 

such as Livermore. And it is a real challenge. So there are several 

of our recommendations that speak to that. One is the increase or 

restoration of the LDRD level of funding—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. That’s right. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. —which is very important at the weapons labs. 

As Dr. Cohon has said from his background in universities, our 

universities today do not train weapons designers. That’s done at 

three facilities in the country, and people need to be brought in 

who are very bright and trained in disciplines that are relevant 

and then given the opportunity to work in these areas. To bring 

them in is best done through funding like the LDRD programs. 

We also address our recommendations on facilities and infrastructure to these areas as well. The run-down state of some of the 

facilities has been an impediment to recruiting and retaining really 

top-quality people, and those labs that have been able to build new 

facilities, new office buildings, new research facilities have seen the 

resulting benefits in their recruiting processes, too. I think your 

proposal is an element that would fit in very constructively to that 

program. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, and I hope my colleagues on the 

other side would entertain that. It’s something our offices have 

been working on with other member offices with laboratories. But 

I do share a belief that, you know, these scientists who work on 

national security programs shouldn’t be treated any differently 

when the eligibility is considered for student loan forgiveness once 

they serve for ten years. So I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. The other gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Let me just note there 

are contractors not just in the labs. There are contractors throughout the federal government, many of them risking their lives, hav-
43 

ing operations overseas with our military and our intelligence 

agencies. And that’s—whether or not we want to do it for contractors what we do for a federal employee is something that is also 

designated by ballot—excuse me, by budget issues which if we indeed say all federal employees are going to—all federal contractors 

will get every right as a federal employee, yes, it’ll cost the federal 

government more money and thus there may be less money for research projects in their labs because we have a limited amount of 

money we’re dealing with here. But maybe that is the best use of 

the money, getting the best contractors you can to work for you 

might be worth it. But we—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would the gentleman yield for just 15 seconds? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure. Sure, go right ahead. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And thank you. And I certainly agree with you 

because a lot of the contractors work for a year, two years at a 

time, and this federal program which was already funded requires 

ten years of service. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, we’ll be taking a look at it I’m 

sure. I have been looking at this. We have, what, 17 national labs, 

and their budget is $14.3 billion of which $11.7 billion comes from 

the Department of Energy. And that represents—that $11 billion 

represents 82 percent of the funding for the national labs. Yet of 

the national labs, there’s a great discrepancy in terms of how much 

of their project is actually being financed that way. For example, 

Fermi National Accelerator Lab receives 100 percent of its funding 

from the Department of Energy but the Savannah River National 

Lab only receives less than seven percent of its total budget. Now, 

where’s that other money coming from? If it’s not coming from 

DOE, where’s it coming from? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Congressman, thank you. The laboratories at 

Savannah River is an unusual case because so much of that site 

is actually the environmental management work. And so I’d point 

to some of the other labs such as the Pacific Northwest Lab or 

Sandia Lab where there’s a large percentage, 30 percent or more 

of the total funding of the laboratory comes from other sources. 

Those tend to be the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, the intelligence community. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much of it is private sector? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. A very small amount actually comes from the 

private sector. I don’t have the percentage at hand, but I would say 

it’s certainly less than five percent. It’s probably 1 or 2 percent. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So if the private sector is involved with 

using these labs, they—do they then pay? They’re paying rent for 

their—they’re paying for the use of the facility, is that it? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. For work that they do that is proprietary, that 

is, such as the pharmaceutical companies who test all of their new 

drugs in the light sources of the Department, they pay full cost recovery. So when they’re using those, they pay the total cost of the 

resources that they use. If they’re engaged in partnerships where 

they’re doing early stage basic research that’s going to be published 

and they’re not going to have any patent rights to it or anything, 

then they don’t have to pay for that. 
44 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, what if they do have it or are private 

companies now receiving patents for the work that they did in the 

national labs? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, and Dr. Littlewood might be in a position 

to actually give some examples of that. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Well, yeah. So often what happens of course is 

that there is research which is done in the national labs that is licensed to private companies. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And I — but does the federal government get an ownership share or a profit share in something that 

we have been provided for these private companies? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Well, the — we’re regulated in this really by 

the Bayh-Dole Act. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Say that again? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Bayh-Dole Act. So going back to 1980, the ability actually to take federally funded research and license it to private companies were effectively regulated in the same way that a 

university would be over that license. 

And then there are other examples where we do what one might 

call—well, what are explicitly cooperative Research and Development Agreements, where we agree in advance to do collaborative 

work with industry. With an agreement in advance about what will 

happen to the IP portfolio? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. Let me just note that I think it’s a 

good thing that we have companies and other government agencies 

utilizing this asset. That’s why we’ve invested in it and I think we 

do, if it’s possible, we’re always looking for some way because we’re 

operating on deficit right now. But by and large, the idea of having 

our companies in the United States and other government agencies 

have that capabilities they wouldn’t have otherwise is a good thing. 

And that’s what it’s all about. So thank you very much. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 

my good friend that serviced on the Texas Legislature with me 

until we got demoted. Mr. Veasey? 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And 

I had a question for Mr. Glauthier and Dr. Cohon about the report 

about the National Laboratories and finding new ways to be able 

to work with universities and wanted to ask, were you able to particularly identify any notable obstacles that prevented labs from 

being able to work with universities? 

Dr. COHON. No, Congressman. We think that the relationships 

now among the laboratories in many universities are really very 

good and no major obstacles for further collaboration. We underline 

it in our report because we think it’s so critical, both for the laboratories and the universities. But there are no major barriers to that. 

We want to of course see it stay that way. 

Mr. VEASEY. Are there any things that you think Congress can 

do to even further encourage those relationships? 

Dr. COHON. Probably hearings like this and asking questions like 

that is a good way to do it, sending the message that it’s a desirable thing to see those kinds of collaborations go forward. Dr. 

Littlewood has a lot of experience with this, and I’m guessing he’s 

going to agree that there are no obstacles to this. Let’s not create 

any. 
45 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Indeed. So I would comment on that. So, you 

know, as an examples and Argonne isn’t very different from any of 

the other science labs. We actually have 200 joint appointments 

with local universities. I’ve talked about joint research programs 

that we go together. 

But I will say that for us, the ability to work with universities 

in a regional context is beginning to be even more important because universities engage in their region. They engage with business, and they begin to form the ecosystems actually that can 

brings the lab in to be more effective in tech transfer. So in Chicago, University of Chicago has the Chicago information exchange, 

innovation exchange, which Argonne is part of because we have 

this relationship with the university. That connects us to a much 

broader ecosystem that would be difficult for a lab that’s got a 

fence around it. So actually, the universities often can be a ways 

out for us to work with the broader community. What I will say, 

however, is that indeed I think we try very hard to have good relationships with their university colleagues. I think there are a few 

barriers at the moment. I hope we don’t create any. 

Dr. COHON. Could I just follow on that? I’m really glad that Dr. 

Littlewood brought that up, this idea of collaborating with universities regionally for regional economic development. Argonne stands 

out among the 17 labs in being both open and proactive in that regard. We, our Commission in our report, signal—not Argonne now 

but the opportunity for that kind of engagement in regional economic development is a potential that’s not being realized by most 

of the labs. And doing it collaboratively with regional universities 

is a very good idea. So seeing much more of that I think would be 

a very good thing. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. May I add one more thought? 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes, please. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. And that is that the role of the DOE labs in 

building and operating user facilities is very important for this collaboration of the university community, and sometimes it’s not understood that the Department of Energy is operating facilities that 

are used by grantees from the National Institutes of Health or from 

NSF or others and that role of the laboratories is a very important 

one. And so Congress could continue to really embrace that and be 

sure that those facilities are for widespread use by researchers in 

all fields. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you very much for your answers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. Mr. Foster, you are up for five minutes. Welcome. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you very much, and I would like to thank 

Chairman Weber and Ranking Member Grayson for allowing me to 

sit in on this subcommittee hearing. While I don’t sit on the committee, I spent 23 years of my life as an employee of Fermi National Accelerator Lab and now I’m one of two members that represent Argonne National Lab. 

And I have to start out by saying that I resonate very strongly 

with the comments you’ve made on the risks of excessive risk aversion, that this is something that we—those of you who’ve lived 

through the Tiger Teams. You remember that? Yes? Okay. Yes. 
46 

You’re bowing your heads appropriately. Let the record show that 

they nodded with a wry smile. 

You know, these sort of things represent an overreaction that 

typically—— 

Chairman WEBER. So ordered, without objection. But can you 

spell wry for it? 

Mr. FOSTER. W-r-y. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. FOSTER. Anyway, you know, very often this starts when 

something bad does happen, you know, there’s an injury or something like this or a security breach. And so there’s a newspaper 

story, frankly an overreaction in Congress, and this gets amplified 

down the command chain at every step at every level in the bureaucracy, someone wants to make sure that everyone reporting to 

them absolutely isn’t the one that trips over whatever rules are established. As a result, by the time it gets down to the working 

level, sometimes these have morphed into really silly things like 

tracking down 20-year-old computers. And I have strong memories 

as I was checking out a Fermi lab, having to track down computers 

I had not seen in 20 years that were just sitting around collecting 

dust somewhere. And this is because probably at some point, someone—you know, there are bad apples everywhere-someone stole 

some computers, and there was a story about it. 

And so I think that, when I’m trying to figure out what the rules 

that you should be held to on this, I think it’s useful to segment 

the truly unique things we do, the part of your work that’s, you 

know, nuclear reactors or weapons, stuff like this, where there are 

really unique risks. From the probably 90 percent of what you do 

that is just ordinary things that can be compared to industry and 

if the standards you were held to was really industry best practices, you know, you have to deal with roadway safety on your laboratories, okay, as do big industrial plants. And I think that when 

you compare your safety record for roads, comparing it to what industry does would be a much more reasonable standard. And part 

of that is that when something happens, Congress has to have a 

more mature reaction. You know, we are seeing in today’s politics 

Members of Congress standing up and saying I want to guarantee 

that there is a zero percent probability that anyone we let into this 

country from certain other countries will turn out to be a terrorist. 

And when you hold people to unreasonable standards, unachievable 

standards, then you end up with bad results. 

Anyway, so I was wondering if you have a reaction to using industry as a benchmark at least for the part of your work that is 

comparable to what’s done in industry? Any reactions as to—— 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Well, actually, let me comment. In fact, we do 

that particularly over safety. So you know, as part of our oversight 

process, I have a board. You know, my board of course has a safety 

committee. My board is actually a rather distinguished board that 

has captains of industry, former Senators, people who want to understand these things very well. And we use that board and their 

oversight role to manage the lab in ways that we think are appropriate. 
47 

As I think you’re pointing out, many of the rules and regulations 

that we face are things that we have to do and I don’t believe help 

the operation of the lab. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right, and so do you have an observation about 

what altitude in the command chain most of these unhelpful regulations are generated at? 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. I think the regulations may have been dealt, 

delivered initially at high altitude but without understanding the 

consequences. They then become imbedded in the system at low altitudes and are impossible to remove. And it may well be that as 

you say, some of these things we could fix ourselves if we actually 

had the courage to just go in there and take this out. And so I’ll 

comment that the Secretary himself has formed a task force to look 

at what he calls an evolutionary model to try and dig out this, you 

know, cobwebby stuff which has just collected over the years. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. If I might, one of the things that previous commissions have done often is to recommend that the Department 

should review all its directives and orders and you know, eliminate 

the ones that aren’t needed. We took a different approach. We said 

there are many situations where you shouldn’t even have to use 

Department of Energy rules or anything, that in settings where 

you’re trying to build an office building, for example. It’s non-nuclear, non-high hazard, it’s not in a classified area. Then you ought 

to be able to have the option, the laboratory have the option of 

using the standards that are in place in the community, in the 

state in which you operate. And we cite some examples where in 

California, for example, there are some electrical wiring standards 

for wiring an office building that Stanford has been recently doing. 

The Department of Energy has these three that we’ve cited that 

were issued in 2006. Those are the ones that contractors are supposed to use in the real world. In the rest of the world those 

haven’t been updated three times since then so that the IBEW, 

electricians who are out there working on these sites have standards that are in fact being used throughout Silicon Valley, and they 

should use those standards for just a regular building and that 

sort. We think that’s one of the elements. Just give the laboratories 

that option to go with the standards that are the appropriate ones 

in the area. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Gentleman yields back. I thank the witnesses 

for your valuable testimony and the members for their questions. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments 

and written questions from members, including those who got wry 

smiles. 

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Would it be possible for me to have another couple 

minutes of questioning for—because this is so dear to my heart? 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, I’m good with that. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. Thank you. I very much appreciate it. You 

mentioned one of the Commission’s recommendations is restoring 

LDRD to six percent, and this is something—I was wondering if 

you—you know, what is magic about six percent. Do you think as 

a general matter of principle that if the fraction of money—I’m not 
48 

talking about increasing the pot—but if the fraction of money was 

delivered as LDRD was increases or decreased, whether it would 

result in an increase in the, you know, innovation and the efficiency of laboratories? 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Congressman, if we could, the level of six percent that was without overhead burden is what the laboratories— 

it’s a ceiling. So not all laboratories would do that, and of course, 

many of the laboratories have decided to use lower rates. But the 

weapons labs especially find that it’s so important, particularly in 

attracting and retaining their employees, that they do need to have 

substantial levels. That six percent is the level that they were 

using at points where it was unconstrained, where the government 

authorized LDRD but didn’t have a cap on it. And so our recommendation is to return to the levels that they had found as effective levels at that time. 

Mr. FOSTER. Is the decrease that we’ve seen in LDRD just a reflection of the fact the budgets have been squeezed and that that’s 

one of the places you can—you know, if there’s some fat—not fat 

to trim but you know, some optional things. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. It’s been a Congressional direction. The change 

in 2006 was to add a requirement to put overhead rates on that, 

and they increased the cap from 6 to eight percent, but the overhead rate effectively made it less than it had been before. And then 

that’s been restricted further in the last couple of years. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. And then finally, do you think it would be 

useful to have an explicit follow-up to this report, to have actually 

action items and have you come back because there’s a long history 

of really very high-quality reports that have gathered dust. And 

what’s needed frankly to my mind is an explicit follow-up, that six 

months or a year from now you come back and say here are our 

action items and here, what we’ve done in response to them. 

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, but our recommendation is that there 

would be a value to having a standing body of some sort set up so 

that it would not just be to look at the regulations of this Commission but to be able to be a resource to the Congress on the implementation of these and the implementation of the Augustine-Mies 

Commission a year ago and the recommendations of another National Academy Report that Dick Meserve chaired and whatnot. 

And as new issues arise, as a problem does come up at some lab 

and the Congress wants to get the perspective of some group of experienced people outside an independent view, that that kind of a 

body could be a group you’d turn to rather than having to create 

a new commission. 

So we would encourage you to think broadly about how you could 

accomplish that, how you can get that kind of oversight and support but definitely on these recommendations and on the whole 

broader category. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you and appreciate it and yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Before the gentleman yields back, Bill, tell us 

again. You worked in the labs how long? 

Mr. FOSTER. Twenty-three years at Fermi National Accelerator 

Lab with collaborators at many national laboratories. 

Chairman WEBER. In what capacity? 
49 

Mr. FOSTER. I was an accelerator designer and builder. I designed and built large-particle accelerator, accelerator components 

and detectors. I’m probably the only Member of Congress that’s designed and built a 100,000 ampere superconducting power transmission line. I don’t want to overreach—— 

Chairman WEBER. Which is why I’m saying we’re glad to have 

you here today. Welcome. Thank you. And I do want to mention 

that we’ve got a bill that we should be dropping tomorrow, Dr. 

Littlewood, called the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act. 

We actually worked with Mark Peters on this bill, and it’s going 

to be doing three things. Of course it’s on advanced reactors, modeling, and simulation. Number one, we’re wanting to focus on a fast 

research reactor. Then we’re also wanting to allow private reactor 

prototypes at DOE sites. So I thought you’d find that interesting. 

Yes, sir. 

Dr. LITTLEWOOD. Yeah, I actually look forward to that because 

we’re very proud to have Mark Peters as an alumnus of Argonne 

go on to be Director of Idaho National Lab. So that’s one of the 

things that we like to do for the Nation. 

I think that by the way, particularly in the reactor area, I’d like 

to comment that Idaho, Argonne, and Oak Ridge are very much in 

synchrony on wanting to push forward the next generation of nuclear reactors. I’d like the United States to have some options in 

2050. 

Chairman WEBER. Absolutely, and we would, too. And Aaron corrected me here. He actually testified on the bill is what I meant. 

And we do have bipartisan—Eddie Bernice Johnson is co-authoring 

the bill with us. And so if my good friends here on the right will 

co-sign on with that bill while we have a good possibility we’re 

going to get it through. 

I do thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and members for their questions. Again, Bill, we appreciate you being here. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments 

and written questions from the members. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
52 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. TJ Glauthier & Dr. Jared Cohon 
53 
54 
55 

Responses by Dr. Peter Littlewood 
56 
(57) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
58 

RESPONSE FROM COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY LABORATORIES
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY LABORATORIES
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
122 

Æ