Stalling Budgets Add to Uncertain Times at National Laboratories

Federal budget uncertainties, higher health care and retirement benefit costs, a reduced retirement rate and added costs from a structural change from nonprofit lab management have all been mentioned as reasons for the enactment of a workforce reduction plan at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The goal is to decrease the number of lab employees by 500 to 700 workers, and the National Nuclear Security Administration has formally approved the plan, as outlined by Los Alamos’ Director Michael Anastasio. The first phase includes voluntary buyouts to reduce the payroll. After that, additional employees may need to be laid off if the budget shortfall is not met. Currently around 10,900 are employed by the laboratory.

 

Scanning news stories from across the country, Los Alamos is not alone in its predicament. The Associated Press reported in November that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California also plans to cut 500-900 jobs from their current number of about 8,000 employees. Other reports state Sandia National Laboratories also plans to cut 40-80 workers from their 8,500 employees.

 

These job losses might become even larger because of the possible reduction in the budget for the Department of Energy, which includes funding for these and other national laboratories. The federal government has not come to an agreement on the final budget for the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1. In the meantime, spending comes from a stop-gap measure that sets funding at the amount from the previous fiscal year.

 

The initial appropriations bill, which included funding for the federal laboratories, was vetoed by President Bush earlier this year for being too costly. Leadership in the Congress has been planning to send revised appropriations bills back to the president, although bundled into an omnibus spending bill. In the omnibus version, Democratic lawmakers were considering splitting the $22 billion difference that exists between the original congressional versions and the president’s budget.

 

However, with a veto threat of the revised appropriations bill as well, the Washington Post on Thursday reported that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey wants to take a different approach. He is thinking of reducing the spending bills for the current fiscal year to the president’s overall $933 billion target, the Post states – this, while eliminating all earmarks from members of Congress, the top spending priorities of the president, and additional funds for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along those same lines of spending reductions, The White House Bulletin cited the president’s advisers as believing President Bush would prefer current funding levels to continue into this fiscal year via a continuing resolution as opposed to an omnibus bill filled with earmarks and costly provisions.

 

The Washington Post story on the current budget situation is available at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001615.html