The Bureau Rebounds From a Disastrous Decade - The Bureau Rebounds From a Disastrous Decade

Throughout the 1970s, the US Bureau of Mines rode an ebb tide in Washington political circles. In rapid fire succession, the agency lost its mine health and safety enforcement responsibility (1973), a large portion of its energy research responsibility (1975), and then its fuel statistics functions plus a sizable portion of its coal R&D (1977). By 1978, johnny-come-latelies in the Energy, Labor, and Interior Departments had siphoned away from the Bureau some $125 million in program responsibilities as well as 900 of its employees. The bruising decade came to a close with a Department of Natural Resources proposal that, in its original form, would have scattered the Bureau's responsibilities to the winds. "There is no doubt in my wind," said Lindsay Norman, acting director of the Bureau of Mines (see box), "that were the Bureau to continue down the path it was on, the next step was closing the doors and going out of business." The doors are still open, but erosion of responsibilities had a devastating effect on the resources available to fulfill the Bureau's mission. Devastating, too, in terms of internal morale, considering the Bureau had six directors in a 10-year span. "When the troops are in the trenches and are being shot at," Norman said, "they need a leader-hopefully, a permanent one- that can get them advancing. This is something the Bureau did not consistently have in the 1970s." In September 1978, Roger Markle climbed aboard as director of the Bureau to rejuvenate the 70-year-old agency. He resigned only six months later* but the program Markle set in motion is being carried through by Lindsay Norman. Since Norman's appointment as acting director, he has spent considerable time on the road explaining his agency's redefined goals. At one such stop in Duluth, Norman and his two deputy directors, Charles Kenahan and Mike Kaas, answered the following questions. Lindsay, you were the principal architect in the Bureau's 1979 reorganization. How about a glimpse of what that entailed? Toward the end of the 1970s, after almost a decade of steady dismemberment, we reached what we felt was a critical point in the Bureau's history-we had the choice of redefining and strengthening our organization to meet the mineral challenges ahead, or continuing down the path toward the agency's eventual demise. We felt the Bureau's mission too important to abandon, so in 1978 with Roger Markle as director we initiated a six-month, no-holds-barred intro spection of just what the Bureau should be doing, why, and toward what ultimate national needs. And what did this self-reflection reveal? That there is, indeed, a unique federal role for the Bureau of Mines-that of a lead agency for influencing mineral decisions and pioneering tomorrow's technologic advances. Don't confuse us with policymakers, we're not. But we are policy analysts; we're scientists, engineers, and mineral professionals who can offer a sorely needed source of objective, accurate information to decision makers in both the public and private sectors. I feel there is no better brain trust in government than the Bureau when it comes to mineral expertise-of course, I'm biased. Do I understand you to say the Bureau of Mines is an advocate agency for the minerals industry? We plead no parochial interests, nor ought we, but from our viewpoint a sound minerals industry is extremely important to the broader national goals of security and a healthy economy. US dependence on foreign sources for critical minerals, the increasing noncompetitiveness of some US mineral sectors, and the array of land use issues surrounding mineral-rich lands all have much more serious implications than many otherwise informed people seem to recognize. In your estimation, how vulnerable is the US to foreign mineral suppliers? Let me make a distinction between dependency and vulnerability. The