[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S6236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. JOHNSTON:
S. 1874. A bill to amend sections of the Department of Energy
Organization Act that are obsolete or inconsistent with other statutes
and to repeal a related section of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the department of energy standardization act of 1996
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the bill that I have just introduced,
which is strongly supported by the administration, amends or repeals a
number of sections in the Department of Energy Organization Act and the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 that are obsolete or that are
duplicative or inconsistent with other, Governmentwide statutes
governing rulemaking and advisory committee management.
Over the past 3 years, I have proposed, on a number of occasions,
amendments to remove administrative requirements of the Department of
Energy Organization Act that are more onerous than similar
Governmentwide requirements contained in more general statutes. For
example, with the support of the Department of Energy [DOE] and the
Office of Government Ethics, I have successfully promoted the repeal of
financial disclosure and divestiture requirements affecting DOE
employees that were more stringent than the comparable requirements of
the Ethics in Government Act and that provided potent recruitment
disincentives for outstanding potential employees for the Department.
This bill continues the process of placing DOE on a similar footing
in administrative law to other Federal agencies. The first subsection
in section 2 of the bill repeals redundant and obsolete requirements
affecting DOE rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, and
places DOE procurement rulemaking under the same statutory basis, that
is, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as all other Federal
agencies. The second subsection repeals a restriction on DOE advisory
committees that effectively prevents DOE from using committees under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act for peer review of scientific and
technical proposals and the selection of awardees for such departmental
scientific honors as the Fermi Award and the E.O. Lawrence Award.
The proposals are noncontroversial, the Department of Energy has
rendered technical assistance in their drafting, and the administration
has indicated its strong support for these provisions in a letter dated
June 10, 1996. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Energy,
Washington, DC, June 10, 1996.
Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
Ranking Democrat Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnston: This responds to your request for
Department of Energy views on proposed amendments to the
Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act).
These amendments would repeal subsections 624(b) and 501(b)
and (d) of the Act. The Department strongly supports these
amendments.
The first amendment would repeal section 624(b) of the DOE
Organization Act (DOE Act) and section 17 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act. The amendment would place DOE
advisory committees on the same legal and procedural basis as
all committees covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Under current law DOE advisory committees are required to
meet in public session, while other agencies may close
meetings to protect information exempt from disclosure under
the Administrative Procedure Act. DOE's more stringent
requirement was justified at the time of its enactment by the
economic regulatory role of the Department's predecessor, the
Federal Energy Administration.
The second amendment would repeal subsections 501(b) and
(d) of the DOE Organization Act. Subsections 501(b) and (d)
elaborate on requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act
interpreted by the Supreme Court to require agencies to
provide the basis or purpose of the rule in their rulemaking
(Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463
U.S. 29, 43 (1983). With repeal of subsections 501(b) and
(d), the Department would be governed by the same standard
procedural requirements as other agencies in conducting
notice-and-comment rulemakings. The Department supports this
change.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection from the standpoint of the President's program
to submission of this report for the Committee's
consideration.
If you have further questions, please contact me, or have a
member of your staff contact Douglas W. Smith, Deputy General
Counsel for Energy Policy, at (202) 586-3410.
Sincerely,
Hazel R. O'Leary.
______