Skip to main content

Greater authority over NNSA

Image
By scooby


H.R. 8159 proposed to create greater DOE authority over the NNSA

"The bill clarifies that NNSA officers and employees shall be responsible to and subject to the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Energy. It further strikes a provision from Section 3220 barring DOE personnel other than the Secretary from exercising authority, direction, or control over personnel employed by or contracting with NNSA."

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/FC%20Markup%20Memo_2020.09.09_0.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…

No, no....no. We are NNSA screw you all, we do what we want so screw you all!!!!!. Let the deep state live and control everything or else we will destroy everything...ha ha ha ha.! It is you choice...deep state or destruction. Do you really think you are more powerful than your secretary,. Do you think all that paper work that you do was for nothing!!!!. All that money that went to the labs that no one could figure out how it was spent was for nothing!!!!!. Ha ha ha there is an army of us deep staters who will do anything... and I mean ANTHING to keep their jobs in the deep state. The bureaucracy must flow!!!!

He who controls the bureaucracy controls the universe.

Think about that before you even attempt to chang the labs much less the NNSA. May the NNSA destroy any and all the DOE that attempts changes. The battle lies are drawn....do you serve the BUREACUCRACY or do you serve freedom for all. Choose a side....but do not complain when you are wiped out.
9/09/2020 10:24 PM
Anonymous said…
PALLONE APPLAUDS COMMITTEE PASSAGE OF ENERGY LEGISLATION

https://energycommerce.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/pallone-applauds-committee-passage-of-energy-legislation
9/10/2020 8:08 AM
Anonymous said…
Looks like the NNSA has gone rogue and there’s some pushback. I’m sure this has to do with the current NNSA management which hopefully will be gone in January.
9/10/2020 10:36 AM
Anonymous said…
NNSA bureaucrats actually thought "autonomous agency" actually meant autonomous agency. Suck it up NNSA apparatchiks, and take orders from your superiors, just like everyone else.
9/10/2020 3:52 PM
Anonymous said…
In certain administrative areas, some with high importance and risk, DOE has exercised considerable control since the start of NNSA, with mostly NNSA concurrence, due to NNSA lacking the technical expertise that DOE HQ has historically had in these areas.

This will mostly affect the weapons program, where the NNSA expertise has exceeded the DOE technical expertise in management. We'll see whose ox is being gored here. If this passes (highly unlikely before the election), I suspect we are to see the nuclear weapons program become much more politically driven. That will not be a good thing.
9/10/2020 5:41 PM
Scooby said…
Every time congress makes a mistake they hardly ever go back and fix it.
Allowing the creation of NNSA and, later, the privatization of the management of most labs are just examples. Any others?
9/10/2020 5:56 PM
Anonymous said…
Scooby, I’m curious about what you mean by “allowing the privatization of the labs?” All the weapons labs were GOCO’s from birth. Sandia has always been operated by a commercial entity. Even UC was an M&O contractor when it was in charge.
9/11/2020 4:35 AM
Scooby said…
I wrote :" the privatization of the management of most labs". LLNL and LANL are 2 of them.
9/11/2020 10:04 AM
Anonymous said…
I understand, but that’s an error in your perspective. LLNL and LANL were never government-operated labs from the federal perspective.
9/11/2020 1:14 PM
Anonymous said…
I think 9/11/2020 4:35 AM is missing the distinction between public contractors like UC, and private contractors like LANS ans LLNS. Both of the latter included UC as a partner, but they bid on the contracts as private entities, as required by Congress.
9/11/2020 5:24 PM
Anonymous said…
"I wrote :" the privatization of the management of most labs". LLNL and LANL are 2 of them."

The move to for-profit NNSA labs and the birth of DOE/NNSA MOUs, have created a basket of accessibility and accountability, problematic obstacles for DOE, which is likely the reason for the bill. This bill was way way way overdue.
9/11/2020 5:34 PM
Anonymous said…
I am unsure what you mean by “ a basket of accessibility and accountability,” can you clarify?
9/13/2020 6:40 AM
Anonymous said…
I think basket is a synonym for many, like a market basket of goods. So he is saying that it created many accountability problems.
9/13/2020 11:05 PM
Anonymous said…
Time heals all wounds. NNSA was born from the need to deflect blame and to create a new whipping boy. The fact that a whole new bureaucracy was created is certainly a plus in the beltway circle. This now tightens the reigns on what was created as a semi autonomous agency. I guess the DOE dogs have outlasted the masters who were not pleased with the mess found on the carpet. But we still have the for profit contractors which in another era would have been called carpetbaggers.
9/14/2020 7:58 AM
Anonymous said…
For those of us who have been around long enough to know the difference, the present, for-profit, corporate management of the Labs has been a disaster. Once upon a time the military made requirements, the DOE translated those requirements into working, tested, physical devices, and the DOE bureaucrats stayed the hell out of the way. These days bureaucrats at every level play liars dice with National security and the so-called scientific staff is too weak willed and too weak minded to call them on it.
9/27/2020 1:22 PM
Anonymous said…
9/27/2020 1:22 PM

Pretty much spot on except "the DOE translated those requirements into working, tested, physical devices." The DOE didn't do that, the labs did that, with oversight from the AEC, which contained actual people experienced in weapons development and testing. The DOE contains only a handful of those left.
9/27/2020 5:17 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more