DOE Opponents Make No Headway in Senate Hearing

Will abolishing the $16 billion-per-year Department of Energy have an impact on deficit reduction? Members of Congress and witnesses debated this at a September 4 hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which focused on proposed legislation to eliminate the department. The consensus among most witnesses and committee members, on both sides of the aisle, seemed to be - no. While it was agreed that DOE had an unwieldy bureaucracy and inefficiencies in management, most believed that the majority of the department’s functions were necessary responsibilities of the federal government. If not performed by DOE, the argument ran, these tasks would need to be transferred to elsewhere in government, with resulting delays, learning curves, and termination and start-up costs.

The hearing was chaired by Sen. Rod Grams (R-MN), sponsor of the proposed legislation, S. 1678, who claimed that the department had become “a patchwork quilt, lacking a coherent theme.” The first witness was freshman Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), chair of a congressional task force last year on eliminating DOE, and sponsor of a similar House bill, H.R. 1993. Tiahrt charged that DOE was expensive and overly bureaucratic. He also implied it was ineffective at regulating energy policy, citing long gas lines from cost controls implemented by DOE in what he said was the Carter era. He explained that the two bills provided a three-year blueprint for downgrading the department to a sub-Cabinet-level agency, then shifting its defense programs to DOD and consolidating, privatizing, or eliminating the rest of its activities. Tiahrt claimed the legislation would save approximately $20 billion over five years. Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) pounced on Tiahrt’s historical statements, saying that President Nixon had implemented gasoline price controls. Noting that he was in Congress at the time, Johnston remarked, “I’d suggest that my knowledge of DOE is more steeped in history than yours.” He added, “I suggest you rethink this bill.”

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) said he would be “the first to lead the charge” to abolish the department if he felt its problems could be solved that way, but admitted that many of its activities would need to be carried on regardless. His advice was not to abolish the department, but to “get an Administration that knows how to handle” it. Johnston complained that the bill “scatters DOE’s missions to the four winds” and reduced the nation’s energy R&D programs to “utter confusion.” Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) also defended the department, commending its maintenance of the nation’s nuclear stockpile as “one of the great successes of government.” Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), a powerful ally of the two DOE labs in his state, declared that he would resist transferring the nuclear weapons functions to DOD “with every ounce” of his capability, and added that “this bill’s not going anywhere this year.”

Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger testified in favor of eliminating DOE, saying it was time to transfer nuclear weapons stewardship, labs, and clean-up responsibilities to DOD. Although he admitted he had felt differently during his tenure as Defense Secretary, Weinberger thought DOE was now lacking “proper regard for the high priority national security should have.” “It seems your main difficulty with DOE is the philosophy of the Energy Secretary,” rather than cost savings, Johnston commented. “I don’t disagree,” Weinberger said. “We can get along with the system we’ve had” if both agencies place sufficient emphasis on national security.

Deputy Energy Secretary Charles Curtis recounted ways in which DOE is already working to downsize, reduce costs, and improve its management. He argued that it was important to have a Cabinet-level official responsible for energy issues, including negotiations on non-proliferation and energy supply with foreign powers. In addition, he said, transfer of environmental clean-up efforts could cost billions in delays, while DOE was just putting into place reforms to improve efficiency. Harold Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, reported that Defense Secretary Perry did not feel the nuclear weapons responsibilities should be shifted to DOD. With the nation just moving toward science-based stockpile stewardship in lieu of testing, Smith said, “we must rely totally on the scientific expertise of [DOE’s] national labs” and scientific peer-review. Asked by Johnston if DOD had a bureaucracy in place to clean up the nuclear weapons sites, Smith said the Defense Department “lacks expertise” in large, nuclear waste sites and would have to augment its Corps of Engineers with DOE expertise to do the job.

Victor Rezendes, Director of Energy Issues at the General Accounting Office, noted that a May GAO report (see FYI #95) had found DOE to be “on track” so far in achieving its planned savings from downsizing, and stressed that elimination of any department should be considered only in a government-wide context. When Grams asked directly whether dismantling DOE would save the taxpayers money, Rezendes hedged, saying “that’s a difficult question,” as some functions would need to be continued. Could those functions be performed elsewhere in the government? Grams asked. Probably, Rezendes answered, but “not necessarily better or worse.” To Grams’ question of “is DOE capable of downsizing itself?,” Rezendes answered, “DOE is reinventing itself right now.”

With Congress in a rush to finish its appropriations bills in time to adjourn by the end of this month, further action on this legislation, as Domenici pointed out, is unlikely this year.