Observations on a Near-Miss
Yesterday’s full House Science Committee mark up of H.R. 1655, the DOE Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, leads to a number of observations. As detailed in FYI #90, the Science Committee originally voted against construction of the Spallation Neutron Source on an amendment to restore partial funding offered by Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL). A second amendment authorizing construction was successful.
Watching all of this unfold in the committee’s main hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building leads to some observations on the Spallation Neutron Source’s near-miss:
#1. House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) runs the show.In order to gain the approval of the Science Committee, a measure has to receive the most votes. There are 25 Republicans and 19 Democrats on the committee. Committee Republicans follow the lead of Sensenbrenner -- in yesterday’s vote on the first amendment, only one of the Republicans (Joe Barton - TX) did not vote with the chairman. If you do not have Sensenbrenner on your side, you probably have almost 25 “no” votes.
#2. Party unity on the committee is high.Barton was the only member present who did not vote with the rest of the members of his party, on both sides. (All Democrats voted on the first round to support SNS construction.) When an issue is contentious, party unity hardens.
#3. The Science Committee can ignore party labels. Passage of many of the other amendments was by voice vote, and many passed unanimously. Despite the hard line that was drawn over the first Costello amendment, the committee came together to pass by a unanimous vote the second amendment authorizing SNS construction. A few years ago, under the former Republican chairman, this unity following emotional words and a close vote would have been improbable if not impossible.
#4. One vote can change everything.Yesterday’s 17-17 tie resulted in the defeat of the first amendment, and set the stage for the approval of the second amendment. Five Republicans and two Democrats did not vote yesterday. A vote by any one of these seven could have changed the outcome and the dynamics of the mark up.
#5. Worthy science does not overcome management shortcomings.There was not a single word of criticism yesterday about the worthiness of the SNS. Nevertheless, criticism of its management was enough to defeat the first amendment.
#6. A worthy project director does not overcome other management shortcomings.Committee members were effusive in their praise of SNS Project Director David Moncton. His stature was not enough to overcome worries about the budget, key personnel, etc.
#7. The superconducting super collider may now be only a hole in the ground, but it lives on.The failure in management leading to the eventual vote to terminate the SSC was mentioned again and again at yesterday’s hearing. The Science Committee has not forgotten the SSC.
#8. Timing matters.Sensenbrenner mentioned several times the failure of DOE to provide a budget baseline by the originally scheduled date in January. He was also displeased when he was not given time to study the first Costello amendment. The committee also knew that the appropriations process is underway, and a solution to the impasse had to be found.
#9. Sensenbrenner wants to make his committee relevant.One of his themes at yesterday’s hearing was the need to preserve the committee’s credibility with the appropriators. He is serious about getting legislation marked up on time and the committee’s oversight function.
#10. Committee members and their staffs know their business.As yesterday’s hearing demonstrated, the chairman knows where there are shortcomings. Democratic and Republican committee members were informed about the issues, and could be impassioned in their presentation. And staff knew how to use an 80-minute lunch break to put SNS construction back on track.
#11. And finally, it’s not over until it’s over. Even though the first SNS construction amendment died, work on the entire bill was not completed, and there was still time for a solution to be found. It still isn’t over: this bill has to go to the House floor, there is the Senate, and there is the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Work on the FY 2000 DOE budget isn’t over -- it has only begun.
