Jun 17, 2008

FY09 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act

Below are excerpts from Congressman Visclosky's press release this evening. The full text of the press release is available here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2008

Statement of Chairman Peter J. Visclosky
Subcommittee Markup: Fiscal Year 2009 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
[...]
Ensuring Effective Project Management
Poor project management negatively affects every facet of the Department of Energy’s endeavors, and it is the Committee’s number one organizational concern at the Department. DOE spends 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts, more than any other government agency, to operate laboratories, production facilities, and environmental restoration sites. Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made an annual assessment of programs that are at high-risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, and every year DOE has made the high-risk list. In the fiscal year 2008 bill, the Committee directed DOE to work with GAO to develop a concrete plan to get off the high-risk list and we have seen little if any progress made. This year we renew that directive.
[...]
Science
The bill recommends over $4.86 billion for science, $140 million above the President’s request and an increase of $844 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Science funds cutting-edge energy research which will be critical for addressing our long-term energy needs. This bill substantially funds the increase in the Science account authorized in the America COMPETES Act. It will provide for 2,600 more research personnel, including graduate students, to address major concerns over the availability of highly educated scientists and engineers whose innovations drive economic growth. The Committee also makes major investments in laboratory infrastructure, embraces proposals to build two dozen Energy Frontier Research Centers focused on addressing critical energy research needs, and provides $539 million, $15 million above the President’s request, for climate change research and scientific computing efforts.
[...]
Confronting Nuclear Threats
The President’s request is long on weapons and short on nonproliferation. Compared to the previous year, the weapons request is up five percent while the nonproliferation request is down six percent. This request is not well focused on the threats we face in 2009 and beyond.

The Energy and Water Development bill reduces Weapons Activities from the requested $6.6 billion to $6.2 billion. It increases Nuclear Nonproliferation from the requested $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion. I hope that the next Administration will better recognize the national security benefits of nuclear nonproliferation.

Last year, the Administration proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the first of a new generation of nuclear warheads. The Administration promotes the advantages of a new design offering better surety, better reliability, and lower yield, but RRW was offered in a vacuum and there was no new strategy behind it. There was no plan for what the weapons were to be used for, how many there were to be, or how they were to be made. So, Congress refused to fund the RRW.

This year, the Committee again reiterates that before considering funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for RRW, the following sequence must be completed: First, replacement of the Cold War era strategies with a 21st Century nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats that is capable of serving the national security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without the need for nuclear testing; second, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; and finally, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile. Of course, we need to be looking at all three at once, but the decisions have to flow in that order. With no such plan delivered, the fiscal year 2009 bill again denies all funding for RRW. There is no sense in expending the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars absent a clear plan for the complex.

Our greatest threat is the use of a nuclear weapon, or nuclear material, in an act of terror. Because of this fact, the Committee recommends adding $283 million to the request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, of which $237 million is for the critical areas of safeguards, material protection and removal, and de-enrichment. The recommendation also doubles the Administration’s request for nuclear weapon surety, since surety is our last line of defense against an adversary’s attempt to use our own weapons against us.

Environmental Cleanup
There is a large and unfortunate legacy of contamination from the past 60 years of nuclear weapons manufacture and various cancelled approaches to handling spent fuel. This bill enables completion of several smaller sites in fiscal year 2009, and sustains cleanup of a number of larger sites. The bill provides an increase of $221.5 million over the request for Defense and Non-Defense Environmental Management programs, and the Uranium Decontamination and Decommissioning account.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"..and finally, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile."

I keep getting this sense that the determination Congress wishes to see is that the weapons complex can be much smaller. Perhaps as much as 50% smaller.

Anonymous said...

How can we possibly cut nonproliferation funding since it's working so...er a well?

"There is no sense in expending the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars absent a clear plan for the complex."

If they're so concerned about our hard earned dollars why did Congress just spent $307B on a Farm Bill that was 70% Pork?

Congress spills more in one day than the funding for the RRW.

Here’s a better idea - STOP electing the same idiots to Congress! The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Anonymous said...

"Poor project management negatively affects every facet of the Department of Energy’s endeavors, and it is the Committee’s number one organizational concern at the Department. DOE spends 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts, more than any other government agency, to operate laboratories, production facilities, and environmental restoration sites."

Lesson one: "Operation" does not generally equal "Project."

Anonymous said...

"Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made an annual assessment of programs that are at high-risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, and every year DOE has made the high-risk list. In the fiscal year 2008 bill, the Committee directed DOE to work with GAO to develop a concrete plan to get off the high-risk list and we have seen little if any progress made. This year we renew that directive."

Congress, it's time to direct the GAO to investigate LANS.

Eric said...

50% smaller is the working number for the moment.

If any readers want to work hard and well on more promising projects--engines and computation--please contact me.

Those are the projects that consume most of my time. They are not associated with LANS or LANL.

Eric said...

Do any readers have strong contacts in Visclosky's office?

Anonymous said...

I'd be a much happier man if my wife would settle for 50% smaller...

Anonymous said...

8:11 AM,

Congress should ask GAO to investigate NNSA and answer one simple question - has their approach to having LANS LLC run LANL been an improvement over UC, both from a cost/benefit to the taxpayers and lab operations/science mission.

Anonymous said...

Hm. Increase funding for nuclear weapons surety, because that's the last line of defense if our weapons fall into enemy hands... but cut RRW which was specifically designed around surety goals.

Sure, that makes sense. Let's keep kluging new techology onto ancient systems.

Anonymous said...

Never forget, 5:17 PM... it's not about how big it is, it's how good you are at working with what you've got. Some of us are true artists.

Anonymous said...

"The Energy and Water Development bill reduces Weapons Activities from the requested $6.6 billion to $6.2 billion. It increases Nuclear Nonproliferation from the requested $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion."

People in X-Div doing weapons work and stockpile stewardship should seriously consider moving over the the TR/non-proliferation side of the house as quickly as possible. The Weapons Activity budget is obviously headed downward. This $400 million cut for FY09 is just the beginning of the process.

Anonymous said...

Just a word of warning... here in TR, I'm living off of 1, 2, and 3 year projects that are funded through competitive proposals. I'm really never sure where my funding is going to come from for the next fiscal year. Even when you're working on projects, you need to continuously spend much of your time chasing money from Washington suits or local project managers. If you think you're going to come over to TR from the weapons program and continue to receive funding handouts without competition or accountability, that ain't happening.

Anonymous said...

"Just a word of warning... here in TR, I'm living off of 1, 2, and 3 year projects that are funded through competitive proposals. I'm really never sure where my funding is going to come from for the next fiscal year. Even when you're working on projects, you need to continuously spend much of your time chasing money from Washington suits or local project managers." (9:17 AM)


Welcome to the new LANL!

Most of the research staff at LANL will be in this same boat over the next few years. Research staff are going to be scrambling around like rats to secure funding and keep their jobs. It's going to be a very stressful and messy situation.

It will be far safer and less stressful to work at LANL if you are either in (a) management, or, (b) some type of overhead funded 'support' position.

Anonymous said...

6/20/08 10:47 AM

"New LANL"??? I've been living off 1-2-3 year grants since the 1990's. Where have you all been? Surely not in INC/CLS/CST/C/MPA land.