A Work in Progress: DOE National Laboratory Reform

A perennial subject for congressional hearings is national laboratory management reform. Congress is as fond of holding hearings on this topic as the Department of Energy is of studying laboratory management, or having others do so. This fall was no exception, with a late September joint hearing by two House science subcommittees on lab reform.

During the last twenty years, about thirty reports have been issued on laboratory reform. Few of them, if any, questioned the quality of the work done in these laboratories or those who do it. In the Cold War’s aftermath there were suggestions that the laboratory complex was outmoded, with recommendations and legislation to consolidate, close or corporatize the laboratories. None of these efforts went far, as they were too grandiose, were contrary to well-established congressional oversight patterns, or affected the political turf of powerful Members of Congress.

This is not to suggest that DOE or Congress have forgotten laboratory reform. Quite the contrary; at this latest hearing subcommittee chair Ken Calvert (R-CA) renewed the call for a streamlining of DOE and lab management. While recognizing that some changes had occurred, he called them “baby steps when some giant steps are needed.” The other subcommittee chair, Charles Pickering (R-MS) called the labs the “best, and at times, the worst aspects of the federal government.”

Victor Rezendes of the General Accounting Office told the committee that “while DOE has made some progress - principally by reducing paperwork burdens on its laboratories - most of its actions in response to past advisory groups are still under way or have unclear outcomes. DOE cannot show how its actions have resulted or may result in fundamental change because they lack the objectives, performance measures, and milestones needed to effectively track progress and account for results. We believe that without a strategy for ensuring that reforms actually take place, DOE will make limited progress in achieving meaningful reforms. Additionally, DOE’s organizational weaknesses, which include unclear lines of authority, are a major reason why the Department has been unable to develop long-term solutions to the recurring problems reported by advisory groups.”As he later said, “fundamental change remains an elusive goal.”

Among all of Rezendes’ observations and recommendations was one that could cause the greatest fundamental change: “if DOE is unable to refocus the laboratories’ missions and develop a management approach consistent with these new missions, the Congress may wish to consider alternatives to the present relationships between DOE and the laboratories.”Rezendes said this could include putting another agency in charge of the labs. The report he summarized, RCED-98-197, can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/monthly.list/september/sep986.htm#1

DOE Under Secretary Ernest Moniz, while saying, “I agree with many of the conclusions of the GAO report,” offered a different perspective. He admitted that more needs to be done, but declared that the department’s efforts had yielded worthwhile reforms. He concluded, “I believe we have made, and will continue to make, steady progress.” Charles Shank, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, declared “there has been significant progress made.” Moniz spent considerable time in his written testimony describing the contributions of the Laboratory Operations Board, co-chaired by John McTague of Ford Motor Company.

McTague gave DOE and its labs a report card for its efforts: “a solid A for technical output relative to the Department’s missions.” “However, I give the Department a B -- up from a C- two years ago -- for its implementation of the administrative reforms recommended in the Galvin [Commission] and other reports.” He later added, “With regard to unfinished business, progress is being made.” “So while I give the Department an Incomplete,’ there’s potential for another solid B.”He mildly criticized the GAO report for understating progress in several important areas.

McTague told the committee, “While I am heartened by events over the past year, I am not declaring victory. It will take another year of unwavering focus and steady progress to truly change the Department.” The next stop in this process will be further management reforms that Moniz said will be in the FY 2000 DOE budget request due on the hill next February.