BUDGET Mr. BEVILL. Provide a table showing all comparability adjustments from the fiscal year 1982 appropriation for these appropriation accounts with an explanation as to why the changes are being proposed. Mr. ROSER. The $18.1 million comparability adjustment shown in this appropriation for fiscal year 1982 includes $9.3 million for the transfer of the Community Assistance program from the Departmental Administration Appropriation to Weapons Program Direction. This transfer is considered appropriate since I have management responsibilities for this activity and since the communities involved were originally established to support the weapons programs and continue to do so to a great extent. The total comparability adjustment also includes $4.5 million for the transfer of the Idaho Landlord function from the Breeder Reactor program to the Defense Nuclear Waste program, and $1.6 million for the transfer of the Classification program from Departmental Administration to the Nuclear Materials Security and Safeguards program. The Idaho Landlord transfer is being proposed so that the landlord function can be budgeted for by the predominant program at the site, while the Classification transfer is an effort to have this important national security function budgeted for by Defense Programs where it has historically been managed. The remaining minor comparability adjustments are also being made to more accurately reflect the true costs associated with these programs. All of the comparability adjustments for this appropriation are shown on a table I would like to insert in the record. [The information follows:] Mr. BEVILL. Explain briefly why the Department is requesting a single appropriation account for its defense activities rather than the traditional accounts for Operating Expenses and Plant and Capital Equipment. Mr. ROSER. It was decided that for budget clarity and flexibility, all of the resources devoted to Atomic Energy Defense Activities should be combined into a single account. However, the Department will continue to track, report, and control this account by the operating expenses, capital equipment, and plant categories. Mr. BEVILL. Please provide a markup of the classified budget justifications, highlighting the classified data not included in the unclassified submission. [CLERK'S NOTE: Material was provided and is on file.] Mr. BEVILL. Why wasn't the classified statements for your testimony submitted three days in advance as required by Subcommittee rules? Mr. ROSER. I must apologize to the Committee for our inadvertent tardiness in submitting advance copies of my testimony. As you know, we are in the process of developing updated budgets which reflect the requirements of the new stockpile memorandum. We had delayed completing the testimony in the hope of providing you with detailed information on those changes, but final Presidential decisions were not available at the time of our hearings before your Committee. Mr. BEVILL. [Deleted.] Mr. ROSER. [Deleted.] Mr. BEVILL. What is its military priority with respect to other systems? Mr. ROSER. The DOD has not provided the DOE with an overall priority listing of all systems under development and in production. Mr. BEVILL. Please provide a priority listing of your Phase 3 projects and projects presently in construction. Mr. ROSER. DOE budgets for and produces warheads for weapon systems required by the DOD and assigned to the DOE through the Military Liaison Committee. These assignments are based on weapon systems specified in the Presidentially approved NWSM. DOE does not prioritize these efforts. If such a priority listing is to be established, it would be a DOD function. Mr. BEVILL. Where do matters stand with respect to the State of California and the contracts for operating the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory facilities? Mr. ROSER. On February 2, 1982, the Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of California signed the contracts for a five-year continued operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Mr. BEVILL. Why does the Office of Congressional Relations need three GS-15's to handle your legislative affairs program? What specifically do they do for your activities? Mr. ROSER. There are three GS-15's assigned to the Defense Programs and International Affairs Division, Office of Congressional Affairs. These three people provide congressional liaison support to Defense Programs activities, which have a total budget of approximately $5.5 billion. Additionally, they also provide congressional li aison support for the Office of International Affairs of the Department of Energy. Specifically, one GS-15 is the Director of the Division and the principal liaison officer for Defense Programs. One GS-15 is the principal liaison officer for the International Affairs function. Also, this person functions as the Deputy of the division and provides backup support to the Defense Programs' congressional liaison activities. The third GS-15 serves as the congressional program liaison officer for Inertial Confinement Fusion and International Security Affairs activities of Defense Programs as well as providing backup support for the activities of the entire division. During 1981, the division was involved in preparing DOE witnesses for 44 congressional hearings before 9 Senate committees and 14 House committees and/or subcommittees. Specifically, the Program Liaison Office for International Affairs was involved in 23 congressional hearings and the Program Liaison Officer for Defense Programs was involved in 21 congressional hearings. Due to the nature and magnitude of the division functions, experienced and mature individuals are required to perform the Government's business. These people must have a broad background in nuclear activities and international affairs. Persons with the necessary background to perform these functions would generally come from high level Government appointees or be GS-15 or above in Government Civil Service. ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES—WEAPONS ACTIVITIES Mr. BEVILL. [Deleted.] Mr. ROSER. [Deleted.] Mr. BEVILL. Explain briefly the need to add 100 positions in the laboratories and how these are to be distributed. Mr. ROSER. As a part of our investment strategy for the future, one of our goals is to restore the nuclear weapons research, development, and testing employment to appropriate levels following a decade of decline. The investment strategy calls for a 15 percent increase in laboratory employment levels over the next few years. The addition of these 100 positions to the laboratories in fiscal year 1983 is a step in that direction. The technology base area will receive 75 of the 100 positions to assist in reestablishing a more desirable level of effort on research with long term pay-offs. Weapons Development Engineering and Certification will receive 20 positions to provide for additional support to the latest generation of more complex warheads for systems such as M-X, TRIDENT II, and LOADS and, finally, Testing Capabilities will receive five positions to support the increased level of nuclear testing. CONTRACTOR STAFFING Mr. BEVILL. Provide a breakdown of the expected contractor staffing in fiscal year 1982 and 1983 for each of the major plants and laboratories, including the test site, for the weapons program. Show how many are required for R&D, ICF, testing, and production and surveillance. Also show how many Federal employees are required and how these are distributed. |