Domenici: N.M. lab budgets going up

Enormous pressure on the federal budget and a leading critic of how the national labs are managed have collided in Washington with U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N .M.

Domenici has been long regarded as the unbeatable protector of lab funding — and jobs — in New Mexico.

He faces an Ohio congressman who argues that the glory days of nuclear-weapons spending are over.

U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio , has questioned how much to spend on the country’s nuclear-weapons complex. Now, urgent needs like the war in Iraq and hurricane devastation are competing with money for the labs.

But Domenici said last week that the overall budgets for both Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories are going up in the 2006 fiscal year. He didn’t provide further details on nuclear- weapons funding because a final deal hasn’t been reached on next year’s budget.

“The laboratory is not going down,” Domenici said in a telephone interview about the budget . “The overall Los Alamos National Laboratory is going up.”

Domenici has been negotiating with House and Senate leaders on the 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, which funds the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. No final compromise has been announced.

But the budget discussion highlights another debate about the future role of the labs. Budget pressure

Hobson has said the country needs a smaller nuclear stockpile and leadership, and fresh thinking about nuclear security.

The policy debate strikes home in Northern New Mexico, where about 9,500 employees and a $2.2 billion budget at Los Alamos National Laboratory fuel a huge chunk of the state’s economy.

As chairman of a House subcommittee which oversees funding of energy and water issues, Hobson faces Domenici, who chairs a similar committee in the Senate.

Hobson’s committee wants less money for weapons programs than last year’s budget. Domenici’s wants more.

Hobson’s office declined to talk with The New Mexican but pointed to several speeches that outline his views on lab funding. Last year, in a speech to the the National Academy of Sciences, he said, “Never again will the federal agencies and national labs have the discretion or the budget that was allowed during the Cold War to pursue any type of nuclear-weapon research no matter what the cost.”

Domenici earlier this year said he looked forward to a productive conference committee “to reconcile two very different Senate and House bills. It will be a challenge, but it is important that we reach an accord that suits our security and scientific priorities.”

As part of these negotiations, the House Appropriations Committee has suggested funding nuclear-weapons programs nationwide at $6.2 billion for the 2006 fiscal year. That’s $296 million below last year and $449 million below the president’s request.

The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Domenici, proposed funding weapons programs at $6.57 billion for the 2006 fiscal year. That’s about $238 million above last year’s weapons budget and $77 million below the president’s request.

House and Senate leaders must work out a compromise and pass a final budget before places like LANL have a final spending plan for the coming year. A final budget is expected yet this fell.

Tight budget projections, in part, have prompted LANL director Robert Kuckuck to form a committee that will review all lab hiring. The lab needs to constrain its hiring now, Kuckuck told employees recently.

Domenici has said there won’t be layoffs at Los Alamos or Sandia as a result of a temporary funding measure, called a continuing resolution, that is keeping funding flowing to the lab.

Both subcommittees headed by Hobson and Domenici also oversee the Army Corps of Engineers. The corps typically undertakes large flood-control projects that have been highlighted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Future mission

Hobson has also questioned the country’s nuclear strategy.

“In summary, we are fighting too much of the last war on the nuclear weapons front and not paying enough attention to the developing front of nuclear terrorism ,” Hobson told the Arms Control Association in a speech earlier this year. “It’s time we take a comprehensive and reasoned look at our nuclear security strategy and decide what we want, what we need and what we can afford for the future.”

Other New Mexico Congressional leaders say the labs can continue to receive funding through a broad, science and research-based mission in addition to weapons work.

“I do not see hard times for Los Alamos and Sandia in the near future,” Rep. Tom Udall, D-N .M., said. “I hope that we can orient them to doing the research on the big challenges that face us as a country.” He mentioned energy issues, climate change and homeland security as examples of nonweapons work that could continue to be handled by the lab.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N .M., said Hobson is not the only member of Congress concerned about how to fund nuclear-weapons programs.

However, Bingaman disagreed with Hobson over funding issues.

“I think it comes down to a question of how the country and the Congress and the administration choose to define the mission of the labs,” Bingaman said. “If we can agree, as I believe, that the missions of the labs should be broad and the labs should be defined as national laboratories that are available to help the country meet a variety of challenges, then I think that, while you might not see the kind of increased funding for the nuclear-weapons programs that we’ve seen in the past,” the lab could receive high levels of funding for many missions.

Domenici said: “Cutbacks are the order of the day in terms of nuclear weapons. And even though it’s a high priority, it’s quite obvious they’re not going to have large increases in the future, unless the mission changes.”

Homeland security, nonproliferation and energy work could increase at the labs, he said.

“So I’m not as pessimistic ... or worried as some,” Domenici said.

But a leading critic of Los Alamos National Laboratory is not impressed with the non-nuclear weapons work at the lab.

“In general, they do a bad job,” Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group said. Los Alamos has a high overhead, an unaccountable culture and is geographically and intellectually isolated, he said.

Mello, whose group advocates nuclear disarmament, says the government has better things to pay for, like fixing ports damaged by hurricanes and protecting oil refineries.

“If we want to be secure, we actually have to invest in real things which will bring real security,” Mello said, “and not just some nuclear pacifier.”

And change is coming to Los Alamos soon.

The National Nuclear Security Administration is scheduled to announce a new lab manager on Dec. 1. A coalition including the University of California and Bechtel are competing with Lockheed Martin Corp. and the University of Texas for the job.

“I believe that with a new contractor, whomever gets it, there’s going to be some new life breathed into this lab,” Domenici said. “... And I’m kind of upbeat about the future.”

Contact Andy

Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican .com.