DOE cleanup in testimony

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

The student list has distributed the following testimony (and Don Hodel's) on
DOE (thanks to Robert Mulder at U. VA. via Leo Bobek, and I cut it -- if
anybody wants the whole thing I can send it). 

This is only an extract that addresses costly DOE site cleanup for no health
benefits. (Seems like we've heard that somewhere before :-) 

Regards, Jim

-----------------
 - Tuesday, May 23, 1995
     House Government Management Subcmte Hearing: Donna Fitzpatrick -
      Prepared Remarks

                        PREPARED STATEMENT OF
                         DONNA R. FITZPATRICK

       BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

                        TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1995

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Donna R.
Fitzpatrick. From 1983 to 1990, I served in various capacities at the
U.S. Department of Energy, including assistant secretary for
conservation and renewable energy, assistant secretary for management
and administration, under secretary, and acting secretary. I am now
president of Radiance Services Company, a technology development and
licensing firm in Bethesda, Maryland, and I am an outside director on
the boards of Sandia Corporation, which is the Lockheed Martin
subsidiary for the management of Sandia National Laboratories, and
Stone & Webster, Inc., an international engineering and construction
firm. Both Lockheed Martin and Stone & Webster are contractors with
the Department of Energy. My testimony is mine and does not
necessarily represent the views of any of these organizations.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee about
the future of the Department of Energy (DOE). The agency is a complex
organization with a proud history in the development, manufacture, and
maintenance of nuclear weapons, basic science research, and energy
technology development. It has also been burdened with some programs
which may have outlived their usefulness. I agree with those who say
that it is time to take a serious look at the DOE's mission and
structure.

To assist the subcommittee in making a detailed analysis of DOE, I
would like to offer some thoughts which are applicable to the federal
government in general and DOE in particular. My testimony will address
five topics: principles for determining what activities the federal
government should undertake; the role of the Congress in determining
federal activities; some serious management problems in the federal
civil service; the kind of scientific research which should be
supported by the federal government; and the future of the national
laboratories. I will then suggest a framework for restructuring the
Department. This is not the forum for detailed answers, which I do not
have. There is a vigorous discussion on these matters and I doubt that
all the right answers have yet emerged. It would be a mistake to take
precipitous action before allowing this discussion to come to some
conclusions.

What activities are proper for the federal government?

We are finally coming to the realization that the federal government
cannot do everything that anyone wants it to do. But the limitation on
government should not be determined by what it can do, but by what it
should do. This country was founded on the principle that the powers
of government were limited so as to preserve the greatest possible
liberties for the people. It follows that what the people can do for
themselves, either individually or in voluntary associations, should
not be done by the government. If something must be done by
government, it should be done by the lowest level which can do it
efficiently and effectively, keeping the activity as close as possible
to the people. The federal government is the actor of last resort,
because the federal government necessarily acts through coercion,
including taxation, and easily falls under influences which are remote
from the common interests of the people and largely invisible to them.
I will try to apply these principles in.discussing what research
activities are appropriate for federal funding.

What is the role of Congress in determining federal activities?

Within the limits of the Constitution, the answer is "Everything." The
executive agencies can do little not directed, at least implicitly,
and funded by the Congress. The courts can only apply the laws written
by Congress or, thanks to ambiguities left in legislation, drive their
own interpretive trucks through the law. It is not an accident that
Article One of the Constitution concerns the legislative power of the
United States. We have three branches in our government, each with its
own powers and responsibilities, but they are not equal. The Congress
is far more powerful than the other two, because it controls the
purse, it directs the Executive, and it can even limit the
jurisdiction of the Judiciary.

The Congress has gotten into the habit of leaving a good deal of its
legislative authority to the regulatory powers of executive agencies
and the interpretative whims of the courts. It complains about the
results, but does not always seem to realize where the problem starts.
For example, the Department of Energy is now spending billions of
dollars per year to clean up the nuclear weapons production complex.
Congress, like everyone else, is shocked by the projected costs of
$200 billion or more. What do we get for all this treasure? Is it
necessary to safeguard public safety? The answer is certainly no. The
cleanup is being driven by standards imposed in federal legislation
which have little to do with actual risk to the public. They really
have more to do with the current and changing state of chemical
detection technology. It is hardly too simple to say that the law and
regulations require that if we can detect it, we have to get rid of
it, even if there is no practical risk to the public. This is
Congress's doing and only Congress can cure it.

It is heartening to see that today's Congress is willing to examine
what has become of its handiwork, begin to remedy some problems, and
perhaps even resist the never-ending temptation to do just a little
something nice for someone.

<snip>