[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
            ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                    RON PACKARD, California, Chairman

 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York          ED PASTOR, Arizona
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                   
                                   
 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
       James D. Ogsbury, Jeanne L. Wilson, and Donald M. McKinnon,

                            Staff Assistants
                                ________

                                 PART 5
                                                                  Page
Secretary of Energy..............................................    1
Departmental Administration......................................  244
Energy Research, Renewable Energy, and Nuclear Energy............  355
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.............................  928
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................................... 1081

                              

                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 56-274                     WASHINGTON : 1999



                        COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                       ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 RON PACKARD, California                NANCY PELOSI, California
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York               NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              ED PASTOR, Arizona
 DAN MILLER, Florida                    CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi             Alabama
 MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,             MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington                              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,             SAM FARR, California
California                              JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
 KAY GRANGER, Texas
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania     

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000

                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 4, 1999.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                                WITNESS

HON. BILL RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF ENERGY

                           Opening Statement

    Mr. Packard [presiding]. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like 
to begin on time. We do appreciate you all being here, and 
appreciate the members being here on time. I just have a habit 
of starting on time. I get a little upset sometimes sitting and 
waiting for my hearings to start.
    So, maybe a little housekeeping as to how we will operate 
on this subcommittee. Inasmuch as this is the first hearing, it 
might be good to indicate how we plan to operate.
    We will probably observe the 5-minute rule starting with 
Mr. Visclosky, and then go over as many cycles as necessary 
during the question period, so that all will be able to ask 
whatever they wish.
    Opening statements. Unless members insist on an opening 
statement, I think that just maybe the chairman and ranking 
member will have short opening statements.
    I do not wish for the hearings to be long and drawn out. We 
may not ask all the questions, either in this hearing or in 
future hearings. We may ask the witnesses and their staff to 
respond by submitting answers for the record, and we will get 
some of that today. We do intend to start our hearings on time, 
and hopefully not have them long and drawn out.
    The next hearing, for the information of the members, will 
be next Tuesday. We are not exactly sure of the time because we 
may have some changes in the Full Committee markup on the 
supplemental that may interfere with our scheduled time, but 
right now it is scheduled for next Tuesday--next Thursday, not 
Tuesday, my apologies. Next Thursday. And you will have that if 
you have not already received it.
    Now we are very, very pleased to welcome each of you here, 
and certainly the members of the subcommittee. I am very 
pleased to be able to serve with you on this subcommittee. This 
is my first term as chairman, and perhaps we might introduce 
some of those that are new on the subcommittee.
    We have Bill Young who is now full committee chairman that 
will be serving as a member of the subcommittee, as he is on 
all subcommittees. Mike Forbes from New York. We are glad to 
have Mike Forbes join us on the subcommittee. Mr. Clyburn is 
not here, but also a new member of the subcommittee, along with 
Tom Latham, who is here. Tom, we are delighted to have you with 
us. And I am delighted to join with some of you old veterans of 
the subcommittee.
    I am particularly pleased to have as our first witness--and 
we won't introduce him quite yet--the Secretary of Energy, Mr. 
Richardson, who is one of our former colleagues and a friend of 
all of us, I believe.
    We are pleased to have the opportunity to begin these 
hearings. We intend for this subcommittee to be one of the 
early bills out of the chute as far as the appropriations 
bills. We will complete our hearings during the month of March, 
and it is important that we have--in fact, we will conclude on 
March 25.
    We will like to have all of the outside witnesses' 
testimony submitted to the committee by the 26th of March if we 
can. It would allow us then to proceed with the writing of the 
bill.
    Again, Mr. Knollenberg, we are pleased to have you, and I 
am pleased to join with you on this subcommittee.
    With that, I am going to ask if Mr. Visclosky would like to 
say a few words, and then we will proceed.

                    Mr. Visclosky's Opening Remarks

    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much. I 
welcome you to the subcommittee, and congratulate you on your 
chairmanship. And I also join in welcoming Mr. Forbes who has 
served with us on Treasury-Postal; and Mr. Latham, as well as 
Mr. Clyburn from South Carolina. I think all three gentlemen, 
as well as yourself, are a welcomed addition to this 
subcommittee.
    I would also point out that the subcommittee has had a long 
tradition of bipartisan cooperation, members getting along with 
each other. That has certainly always been my experience. It 
was my experience with you when we served together on military 
construction; and through four different chairs and the last 
four Congresses that tradition has been maintained. I certainly 
look forward to working with you and members on both sides of 
the aisle here to make sure that we are as productive and 
responsible as possible as far as our responsibilities. I would 
simply also conclude by adding my welcome to Secretary 
Richardson. Happy for his success, and look forward to working 
with you, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much. And we are very 
pleased to have the Secretary with us as our first witness in 
our hearing process. Like I mentioned, he served in the House 
for some years. Most of us have had very pleasant experiences 
working with you in the House.
    I want to congratulate you on your new assignment, even 
though it is 6 months old now, as Secretary of Energy. We 
appreciate the work you are doing; looking forward to your 
testimony this morning.
    I might mention that I presume members of the subcommittee 
have read your testimony. It is very thorough and very 
complete, and frankly very technical. You handled the issues 
very well. I have read it all, and I am sure they have.
    I would not like to sit here for 2 hours and listen to it 
all again--[Laughter.]
    But you may do as you wish, Mr. Secretary. But I would 
appreciate it if you would maybe summarize, but, again, it is 
up to you. We are delighted to have you with us though, and 
congratulations on the work you are doing at the agency.

                   Statement of Secretary Richardson

    Secretary Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I want to get off to a 
good start with the subcommittee, so I will take the hint, and 
not only summarize, but summarize extremely briefly, because I 
know that this subcommittee has a lot of work to do. I also 
want to note that you, Mr. Visclosky, and myself are all new in 
our jobs, so I hope to have a very good working relationship 
with you and many members of the subcommittee who I have known 
over the years. And when I was at the United Nations I sort of 
felt I was Congressman Forbes' constituent. I don't know if he 
felt the same way, but he was my Congressman, and my friend for 
many years.
    Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to this subcommittee $17.1 
billion in your jurisdiction to strengthen our country. We have 
a number of missions: developing breakthroughs in science and 
technology; maintaining the safety and reliability of our 
nuclear weapon stockpile; ensuring energy security; and 
cleaning up the environment from the legacy of the Cold War.
    I would also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, that I have 
here most of the assistant secretaries, for the relevant areas 
of the budget. So any questions that get very, very technical, 
I may be deferring to them.
    Let me say also, Mr. Chairman, that I look forward to 
working with you on a number of issues. I know that Mr. 
Frelinghuysen--as a member of this subcommittee--and I had a 
chance to visit his facility, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab 
just last week, and I was very impressed with the fusion work 
that they are doing there.


                           national security


    Mr. Chairman, in the interest of moving rapidly let me talk 
about national security which is one of our primary missions.
    We maintain a safe and reliable nuclear weapon stockpile 
that does not require nuclear testing, and to do so requires 
that we ensure an adequate supply of tritium. This is a program 
that Dr. Vic Reis, who is on my right, runs here for our 
Department. It is very important, the stockpile stewardship 
program.
    We also deal, Mr. Chairman, with the global nuclear peril 
through our nuclear non-proliferation programs, eliminating 
excess weapons grade materials, and adhering to international 
arms control treaties.
    We have joined with Russia and a number of programs that 
are under the jurisdiction of this committee that are very 
important; nuclear cities, programs where we try to keep Russia 
and nuclear scientists from defecting and working with us 
rather than for the Iranians, Iraq's, and North Koreanans. 
These are some very important programs that we consider are key 
to our national security.
    We also believe, Mr. Chairman, that these are programs that 
are being run well, and we look forward to working with you to 
make them run even better.


                         stockpile stewardship


    As I mentioned, on stockpile stewardship the Secretary of 
Defense and I certified to the President for the third 
consecutive year that there was no need to conduct an 
underground nuclear test at this time. We think this program is 
working well.
    Eleven thousand nuclear weapons have been safely dismantled 
since 1991. We have supercomputers that will reach 100 trillion 
operations per second by the Year 2004. These are advanced 
supercomputers that we use in the stockpile stewardship program 
to complete the shift from nuclear test-based methods to 
science-based methods to certify the safety and security of the 
stockpile.
    Mr. Chairman, I think I have made a good decision for the 
taxpayer on tritium. I believe that we are ready to announce 
the figures of our negotiations with the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA) to substantially save the taxpayer money; 
provide for our strategic stockpile, our tritium supply a 
flexibility for arms control negotiation.
    But most importantly, I think I know, in a committee that 
wants us to reduce funding, we have done extremely well in 
protecting the taxpayer; and we have just concluded, as I said, 
our negotiations with TVA on the cost.


                      solar and renewables funding


    Mr. Chairman, moving on to other issues that do not relate 
to our nuclear weapons. Mr. Chairman, in the energy resources 
budget we are requesting $2.1 billion. Within the jurisdiction 
of the subcommittee, our request is $867 million.
    We have a request of $399 million for solar and renewable 
programs, an increase of nearly 19 percent over Fiscal Year 
1999. And we are doing some very important work in 
photovoltaics, solar, thermal, biomass, and alternative 
transportation fuels.
    I am proud to say that the management process in the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has been tightened 
up. Dan Reicher, our very able Assistant Secretary, I know has 
been meeting with your staff, and we are continuing our efforts 
to deal with more competitive bidding and more solicitations. 
We have received more than 400 applications from a broad range 
of applicants.
    This is one of our best programs, the renewables program, 
Mr. Chairman. We are doing a lot to have energy efficiency in 
federal buildings, a lot of very important research that takes 
place.
    Today I am announcing that we are awarding the first two 
grants under the solicitation to Columbia University and the 
American Wind Energy Association. Both of these entities are 
shouldering at least 75 percent of the cost.
    We are increasing our request for nuclear energy R&D by 
$13.5 million to $87.3 million.


                         nuclear waste clean up


    We also, Mr. Chairman, want to work with this subcommittee 
to develop a national plan to integrate our nuclear waste 
policy. We have a Rocky Flats policy, a Brookhaven, a New 
Mexico, and Oak Ridge policies.
    We need a national policy. I have just met with the 
governors at the National Governors Association to try to 
develop a multi-year plan with funding and standards that once 
and for all recognizes that we have to dispose of this waste, 
and that it is in our interest to have an integrated plan 
rather than spotty, ad hoc initiatives that over the years have 
not worked.


                        waste management program


    We, except for remaining ground water contamination, have 
completed clean-up of 22 large uranium mill tailing sites, as 
well as a number of other vicinity properties. We are also 
making progress at other sites, at Hanford.
    I am very pleased that we reached an agreement with the 
governor and the attorney general on tanks. We have a 
reprogramming before the committee which we think is important 
on the Hanford Tanks issue.
    We also are moving ahead on improving the management of our 
waste program. I have an Assistant Secretary that I have 
selected. If the other body ever confirms my nominee we will 
have made a lot of progress and moved towards more efficient 
management of this division, which does need better management.
    On the low level, transuranic waste, we are having some 
problems regrettably with my State of New Mexico to open the 
facility known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Hopefully in 
the days ahead we will make progress because the State of Idaho 
and the Department of Energy have an agreement to have the 
waste come in by the end of April. This is tight. The Rocky 
Flats in Colorado--we have to make more progress there.


                     environment, health and safety


    Mr. Chairman, safety is a big issue for me. I issued a 
directive on safety today, which will be one of the most 
comprehensive in the history of the Department, if not ``the'' 
most comprehensive.
    I want to hold contractors accountable for safety 
throughout our contracts. We will insist that the integrated 
safety management be put in place at each of our sites by 
September of 2000.
    We have also taken many measures to conform with your 
subcommittee's project management initiatives. I know this is a 
management issue, and it is one that we take very, very 
seriously. I will establish a secretarial safety council to 
enforce these safety targets.


                         managing our workforce


    You will also be pleased to know that the Department is 
functioning leaner and smarter. We have reduced by 25 percent 
our workforce since 1995--25 percent--surpassing our goal by 
almost 2 years.
    We have also reduced our contractor employment by 29 
percent since its peak in 1992. I have an initiative called 
Workforce 21 to address some of the certain skill shortfalls 
that we have.
    I am particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, about losing 
employees at many of my colleague's sites, replacing that 
workforce with a technical workforce that can be drawn in and 
brought in. We are losing a lot of skilled engineers to the 
private sector, and we have to look at our replacement 
workforce, especially in the nuclear weapons complex, but it 
affects all the lab employees, certainly at Brookhaven, and 
certainly at Princeton also, which I visited last week.
    Mr. Chairman, I think every Secretary of Energy says that 
they want to manage the Department better. The Department needs 
to be managed better; there is no question about it. We need to 
have clear lines of responsibility. We need to have more 
efficient reporting requirements. We need to make sure the labs 
and the headquarters communicate effectively. We have to be 
able to find ways to manage our waste and our clean-up better.
    We need to make sure that we have a diverse workforce; that 
we need to have more women in science and engineering at our 
Department. We need to do many, I think, very important 
initiatives that deal with a top to bottom management review.
    And I am doing that. And I would ask this subcommittee to 
give me the flexibility to do that. It is going to take a 
little time, but we have already made a lot of progress. I want 
to also look at the possibility by the end of the year, Mr. 
Chairman, of having a mega-contract for all our defense 
facilities; one contract that deals with all of our weapons 
labs.
    Vic Reis is here. What we want to do is consolidate, save 
money for the taxpayer. We have a plethora of contractors, and 
we are looking at ways so that perhaps in a year, we can come 
back to this committee and deal with more efficient ways to 
manage our weapons complex, and that would be with one 
contractor.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think this committee has given us 
very good advice on many other management initiatives which we 
are adopting, which we want to work with you to do. Perhaps the 
most important one is to find ways that our Department is more 
accountable to the Congress.
    Mr. Chairman, I have done this in 8 minutes, and you are 
right, it would have taken me 45.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Richardson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               questions

    Mr. Packard. But you were thorough on it. And again, thank 
you very much.
    On questions we will take the members as they have arrived, 
in the order that they have arrived out of fairness. And Mr. 
Visclosky's made a suggestion which I think is a good one. And 
that is, if there are members that have other appointments or 
other hearings that they cannot remain, we still want to hear 
your questions.
    And so, if you will just contact either Mr. Visclosky or 
myself, we would be more than pleased to move you up in the 
order, if it were possible, to allow you to ask your questions 
before you have to leave.
    Again, I want to welcome Mr. Clyburn who has arrived now, 
and thank him for being here as a new member of this 
subcommittee.

                             roll call vote

    Thank you very much. My staff reminds us that we need to 
have a roll call vote to close the March 18th hearing which is 
dealing with the atomic energy defense activities.
    Mr. Visclosky, would you like to make a motion to that 
effect?
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, because the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development will be dealing with national 
security and other sensitive matters at its hearing on atomic 
energy defense activities, I move that the hearing on March 18, 
1999 be held in executive session.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?
    It requires a roll call. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Packard?
    Mr. Packard. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rogers? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Knollenberg? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frelinghuysen?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Callahan? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Latham?
    Mr. Latham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Visclosky?
    Mr. Visclosky. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pastor?
    Mr. Pastor. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clyburn?
    Mr. Clyburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Obey? [No response.]
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, 8 ayes. So it passes, and we 
appreciate that technical effort.
    Now we would proceed to the questions. Again, we appreciate 
the testimony of the Secretary.
    And I am going to open the questioning with a couple of 
general questions, and then we will proceed with Mr. Visclosky.

                       fy 2000 funding priorities

    You have been on the job, as we mentioned earlier, for 6 
months, and you have certainly gotten your hands on the job. 
What do you see now after that period of time as your highest 
priority?
    Secretary Richardson. Mr. Chairman, right now what I see is 
the management issue. I can tell you right now that nuclear 
waste is an extremely high priority. Stockpile stewardship, 
national security is critical. The waste issues, how do we deal 
with clean up; those are immensely important. Science and 
technology.
    But I think it all boils down to managing this Department 
better. This is a Department of $18 billion, if you add the 
Interior side to your jurisdiction. It is a Department of 
100,000 people with labs and project offices every where.
    What we want to do, Mr. Chairman, is continue what this 
committee suggested we do, and that is make our initiatives and 
our programs more effective and efficient. We have proceeded 
with the project management reviews that you asked us to do. I 
am expanding that to defense programs and environmental 
management programs similar to our review teams in the science 
area.
    We are moving forth on ways to ensure that R&D is more 
effective and efficient, and we have set up a team to deal with 
that issue.
    I mentioned earlier our labs; how can we have our labs not 
be duplicative? They are crown jewels and they are doing 
excellent work, but maybe there are ways that we can manage 
them better.
    Workforce 21. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we have 
technical work and some very important priorities to ensure 
that we have a future workforce in these very technical, 
scientific national security areas that can replace the very 
good existing workforce.
    Contract reform. We have followed generally the Committee's 
view that we should re-compete as much as we can, and we are 
going to continue doing that. We think that this is a way that 
we can be more efficient and find ways to save money for the 
taxpayer.
    But Mr. Chairman, the management review that I have 
instituted at the Department is comprehensive. And when I 
testify again you will see that this is not a paper review; 
this is going to propose some broad changes in the way we 
manage our department.
    We have not been as good as we should be in the safety 
area, in the clean-up area. We have not been as good as we 
should in complying with States and the Congress on a lot of 
clean-up and other schedules.
    We are a very important and good department with a lot of 
good people, but I think the key and most important priority is 
to have this department managed better. We have reduced, Mr. 
Chairman, 25 percent over 4 years. That does not mean we are 
going to continue doing that and be efficient.
    I think we have reached a point where we now have to look 
at critical skills, and recognize that if we are going to 
fulfill the objectives of taking care of our nuclear weapons; 
of ensuring that Russia and their nuclear weapons and 
scientists do not go askew; that we keep the stockpile 
stewardship program effective and efficient; the science and 
technology programs that we have.
    We are making a major announcement today--work performed at 
the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory has 
confirmed that x-ray diffraction studies of hair from breast-
cancer patients shows a markedly different pattern than hair 
from healthy subjects. Brookhaven, just in the last 6 months, 
has made great advances in the areas of narcotics detection.
    Mr. Chairman, in the renewables area we are doing very 
important work. Not related to climate change, which is 
important, but the energy security, Mr. Reicher's program, is 
making the government more efficient, the energy efficiencies 
and the ways we use the taxpayer dollar.
    My whole point is that managing the Department better will 
enable us to manage the direction that this committee has given 
us more effectively and efficiently.

                         fy 2000 funding levels

    Mr. Packard. We will follow your management changes 
closely, I think, in the future, and we are looking forward to 
seeing those changes.
    You have called for an increase, a modest increase--well, 
it may be considered a modest increase, $600 million increase 
over last year's budget or appropriated levels. And you are 
fully aware that the budget caps are being discussed here on 
the Hill. And if we have to take cuts because of living under 
the caps, or if we cannot come up with the monies that would be 
able to grant you the increases that you have asked for, what 
areas would you still wish to increase in terms of budgeting 
levels, and what areas would you be able or willing to cut?
    Secretary Richardson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I support all our 
funding. But let me just say, if you look at our budgeting--and 
Mr. Telson can explain it better--our budget is a 4.1 percent 
increase if you take into account some of the Russia programs 
that we got at the end of the year in the emergency 
appropriation.
    So some have said--and Mike Telson, my budget man--where 
all he does is work on numbers--has said to me that our budget 
in essence is flat. And so I am not exactly asking for dramatic 
increases.
    I think our budget is spaced out in a way that on stockpile 
stewardship we feel very fortunate that the $4.5 billion that 
we got will do the job to protect our weapons, and be able to 
come to you, as Secretary Cohen and I do every year, and say 
that we have met our national security goal of having these 
weapons without testing.
    In the area of clean-up we got $5.7 billion, which is $100 
million more than last year, which will enable us to meet the 
clean-up schedules at many of our sites.
    In the science area we consider it a good budget, a slight 
increase.
    Across the board, Mr. Chairman, I think our budget is fair. 
We are not a high growth department. We have reduced our work 
force. But I think if we are going to complete our mission I 
want to be able to come back to you in 6 months and answer your 
question, and say this is where we can reduce by improving our 
management.
    Mr. Packard. I expected that answer; that you are not 
willing to cut anywhere, of course. And you are to be 
commended.
    Mr. Visclosky, let's go to you.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, again, wish you well in your endeavor, and 
realize you have already been called upon to make a number of 
hard decisions.

        aging workforce and infrastructure at production plants

    In your opening remarks you alluded to stockpile 
stewardship and you also mentioned stockpile management, and 
talked about some of the difficulties and problems we face as 
far as the workforce and facilities.
    I do have a concern--and I guess I would be remiss in not 
mentioning them at the hearing, and I know you share my 
concern. But we have the four facilities, and my understanding 
is that the average length of service at the Kansas City plant, 
for example, is about 28.2 years, and that 25 percent of the 
staff could retire right now. I think that pretty well plays 
out at the other facilities, as well as problems with 
collapsing ceilings, puddles near electrical equipment, and 
what have you.
    The administration generically has obviously set aside 
additional monies for defense functions. My concern is how are 
we collectively going to deal with what I think is a very 
serious problem in making sure that, one, the people problem 
prospectively, as far as the unique talents that your people 
possess are going to be secured in the longer term; and also, 
how are we going to address the real property maintenance 
issue?
    Secretary Richardson. Well, I think, Mr. Visclosky, I will 
answer your question, and then time permitting, Dr. Reis is 
also here, who is distinguished and has a long record in these 
issues.
    We have to keep a balance between our stockpile management 
program and our stockpile stewardship program. You have pointed 
to a very critical problem, and that is people. And we are 
worried that the ever-increasing age of the workforce is a 
complex wide problem, especially in these defense plants, and 
we have to do something about it.
    The reason this has happened is because of the downsizing 
of our workforce. If you all recall, 5 years ago we all 
considered legislation to abolish the Department. And we were 
conscious of that, and we reduced. But I think it has reached 
the point that a lot of these younger employees don't have 
seniority anymore.
    We need to look at incentives, retirement bonuses. We need 
to recruit better. We need to get more minorities and women. We 
need to be more competitive with the workforce.

                        chiles commission report

    A very distinguished admiral by the name of Admiral Chiles, 
has just completed a report on the workforce. He just finished 
briefing, I think, your staff. And I would urge you, if you get 
a chance, to read it because it deals with ensuring ways that--
we find those that are nearing retirement with critical skills 
and give them retention bonuses; that we retain the services of 
retirees with certain skills as part-time workers or advisors. 
Dr. Reis and I had heard a briefing on this yesterday.
    We need to look at compensation packages, quite frankly, 
that also deal with ways to make employment in our labs, in our 
facilities, more attractive than the private sector. And I have 
to tell you, that is tough. But we have to have a way to ensure 
that there is a balance between stockpile management and 
stockpile stewardship. In other words, we have to have the 
people to do this job; we cannot just let people go and bring 
computers in. There has to be a balance, and I think that Dr. 
Reis has achieved that.
    Could I ask Dr. Reis briefly to----
    Mr. Visclosky. Sure.
    Secretary Richardson. Vic.
    Mr. Reis. I would elaborate just a bit on what the 
Secretary said. The Congress asked the Chiles Commission 
specifically to look at the personnel problem several years ago 
because that is the long-term--that is over time, as you 
project out in time, I think that is the most difficult part of 
the whole stockpile stewardship.
    We are asked not to maintain the stockpile just this year, 
but we are asked to maintain it indefinitely in a safe and 
reliable case, and do that without testing. And that ultimately 
comes down to a judgment call of the people in the 
laboratories, and it comes down to the ability to maintain the 
critical skills in the plants as well.
    So that is--you asked me what the number one problem is 
over time. At this stage of the game it is the personnel--it is 
the personnel level.
    I think many of the suggestions of the Chiles Commission--
we are in the process of implementing, and will be implementing 
more. In doing that, we have to train those people. We have to 
shift the skills of the people who are retiring to the new 
people coming on board.
    And I think the key finding, if you will, of the Chiles 
Commission--in fact, their number one finding related to the 
long-term stability of the program. People don't want to come 
in if they don't think the program is going to last for that 
much longer. With the end of the Cold War people were very 
concerned with what was happening, so many of the younger 
people left at the same time we were doing the downsizing.
    So the key item across the board is maintaining the 
stability of the program, because nobody is going to join if 
they don't think they are going to have a job 3, 4, 5 years 
down the road.
    That was basically the number one concern. And as we have 
talked about this before in the past, the administration is now 
projecting a stable $4.5 billion budget for stockpile 
stewardship over the years. That was their number one concern 
about how to do that.
    The details are very important as well; to initiate the 
training; to have the mentoring programs, and we are in the 
process of doing that. And maybe when we get together on the 
18th we can go into that in more detail.
    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Mr. Forbes from New York.

        High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory

    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is indeed a pleasure to see you again, 
and thank you so much for what I can only best describe as 
being a champion of Brookhaven National Laboratory.
    As you know, it is a facility that is near and dear to my 
heart. I appreciate that the Secretary recognizes the really 
groundbreaking research that is going on there, and the fact 
that Brookhaven National Lab is really a major partner in 
making sure that America keeps its competitive edge.
    You also know that I have been extremely critical of some 
of the past environmental practices, and I know you are no 
stranger to that. You come to this job with an excellent record 
in the House of being able to balance both environmental 
considerations against the need for America to make strong 
investments in its research and in its laboratories. So I am 
really pleased that you are at the helm of the Energy 
Department.
    We have discussed a number of times, as you know, the High 
Flux Beam Reactor, and if you will indulge me, Mr. Secretary, 
clearly an issue of great importance to the people in the 1st 
District of New York, I am concerned obviously that this High 
Flux Beam Reactor would be approved for re-start. And I know 
that you are in the process now of contemplating, based on the 
various information that is being gathered. There is a comment 
period, which I thank you for extending the timeframe in which 
people could make comments to the Department of Energy on the 
environmental impact statement. I thank you for that 
indulgence.
    And let me thank you too for postponing your decision 
twice, from my very--in this case--partisan view of keeping the 
reactor closed, I do appreciate the delay, and I am hopeful in 
the end that your decision will be one that perhaps falls in 
line with what some of us in the 1st District believe should be 
the case.
    Have you a set timeframe at this point for when you will 
make a final decision on the re-start of the High Flux Beam 
Reactor?
    Secretary Richardson. Congressman Forbes, yes. I am going 
to make the decision in April, and my very able Director for 
Science, Martha Krebs, is in the process of preparing that 
recommendation now. And as you know, we extended the comment 
period at your request, and I did agree with you that more 
comment from your citizens and constituents was needed.
    I want to make this decision based on science, based on the 
interest of the people in your community. I have some science 
people that think that this research is important. On the other 
hand, we have to look at the cost of this reactor; how much it 
would cost to restart it versus decommissioning.
    There are a lot of factors, but I am not going to delay 
again. I think you would agree with me that the time has come 
to make the decision.
    I am informed here the record of decision is a little later 
than April, but my recommendation from my staff will be given 
to me this spring. So we have a little bit of time.
    Mr. Forbes. That is great. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Richardson. You know, Mr. Forbes, one of the 
things I found when I got in the job is a lot of decisions were 
postponed, and I came in September and had about five huge 
decisions involving a lot of States to do. I would prefer to 
make the decision sooner than later.
    But here, I would hope that we could work together on it. 
This is a very important decision. And as somebody who also, as 
you know, spent time in your district, in New York, I sort of 
feel a kinship for that area too.

                 Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)

    Mr. Forbes. I know you do, and I appreciate that.
    And let me thank you for your request, particularly in 
nuclear physics, to increase that budget by almost $5 million. 
I think that is particularly noteworthy when you take into 
consideration that we have that exciting new project that is to 
go on line very soon toward the end of this fiscal year, the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, which has been the pride of 
Long Island. And frankly, this member of Congress would love to 
take great credit for it, but I think it goes back three 
members of Congress that this project has been under 
construction, and frankly, a major priority, both with former 
Congressman Hockbruckner and former Congressman Carney.
    This has been a project that has bipartisan support, and I 
am very, very appreciative that the Department did make the 
request for an increase, and that $118.5 million I would hope 
based on that request be dedicated to the RHIC project when it 
goes on line.
    Having said that, I would also emphasize that I think the 
RHIC project really is--and not to detract from all the good 
research and all the other ability to do research at 
Brookhaven, but the RHIC is going to be clearly our 
centerpiece, and I think that its operation will continue to 
make sure that Brookhaven National Laboratory is in the 
forefront of research and development in this country. So I do 
thank you for that commitment.
    Do you see any delay in the start-up of the RHIC project?
    Secretary Richardson. The answer is no. Let me just deal 
with the first part of your statement.
    We did put in the $5.7 million in the clean-up funding. I 
think you are being very generous in sharing the credit with 
everybody. You had a lot to do with this; I think you put it in 
the bill. And we have honored that.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Secretary, I also appreciate the fact that 
the administration, with your direction, asked for an increase 
in the environmental clean-up fund. It is almost $30 million, 
so I thank you for that.
    Secretary Richardson. Right. And we will be moving that--or 
the money is already moving.
    In terms of the RHIC money, we will complete on time the 
RHIC funding in the fourth quarter--this is Fiscal Year 1999--
and begin operating it. We are also providing an additional 
$17.9 million to Brookhaven to support research using this very 
unique facility.
    So for the total of the Fiscal Year 2000 budget it is 
$106.1 million to fund these operations.
    Mr. Forbes. Okay, I appreciate it. If I could just ask one 
final question. I know that the additional $5.7 million still 
hasn't been expended yet. Will that be forthcoming to 
Brookhaven?
    Mr. Richardson. I think--I have got my budget man here--
$2.1 million has already been made available, and $3.6 million 
will be transferred in the next monthly financial plan.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Pastor.

                       Science Education Funding

    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, welcome 
to the subcommittee. I look forward to working with you under 
your leadership, and, Mr. Secretary, welcome to your position, 
and I also look forward to working with you.
    I have two questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 
understand you are proposing a new science education budget of 
$10 million. I know it is very important, but other Secretaries 
were not as successful in getting this money, so, hopefully, 
you can persuade us that the request is important, and you can 
also inform us of how that money will be used.
    Mr. Richardson. Well, Congressman, I am delighted that you 
are on this subcommittee, and I am delighted that you are 
pressing for this initiative, because I think this is very 
important. We have proposed over the years--I think it was $15 
million last year--for this program that basically is in line 
with what we talked about of replacing the work force that we 
have at the Department of Energy. This is a problem we have had 
with our Appropriations Committees. We hope this subcommittee 
gives us a chance to show that this is a good program.
    What we have is a program that blends the assets of our 
National Laboratories with the National Science Foundation 
Education Programs. It is K through 12; it involves pre-college 
math and science teachers providing research opportunities at 
Department of Energy laboratories. They learn about science; 
they learn about the classroom science environment at the labs. 
It allows university faculty and student teams at the end of 
graduate level to participate in long-term research programs.
    We are investing in science, and I hope, Congressman, that 
we will work together with every member of the subcommittee to 
make sure that this program is well managed, I can assure you 
of that. But give us a chance to show you that this is a good 
program. We have not had luck--but, I am going to work very 
closely with the Chairman and the ranking member and members of 
the subcommittee to persuade you that this is a good investment 
and a good program.

                    Education Support for New Mexico

    Mr. Pastor. I can't help noticing that the New Mexico 
schools are doing well in Los Alamos, and I know that the 
factor is that they are in the State, but I would encourage you 
as I have former Secretaries that there are States adjoining 
many of the labs that could benefit, and I would encourage you 
that at least at Los Alamos you might look at adjacent States 
that could participate in this, and it would be beneficial to 
its students, and so I--
    Mr. Richardson. You mean like Arizona?
    Mr. Pastor. I mean like Arizona. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Packard. I am surprised that Mr. Pastor noticed that in 
testimony that all the education money goes to New Mexico; that 
is unique, isn't it?

                          solar roofs program

    Mr. Pastor. Well, I know that this Secretary is very 
sensitive to other States, and I know he will do his best to 
make sure that the adjoining States will participate.
    I noticed in your budget, you are continuing to support 
solar and renewable resources. I think it is very important. I 
think it is important that we have a balance, and I 
congratulate you and thank you for supporting this effort. I 
have to tell you that I also want to commend your department, 
working with them. Most recently, I think, a couple days ago, 
they announced that they are trying or will try to get 
proposals from various Native American reservations in which we 
can use the photovoltaic cells--shingles in their communities. 
And you well know how isolated the Indian nations are and how 
widespread they are, and it is very commendable that you have 
this initiative. I will try to encourage as many Native 
American nations to participate, because it will help them; it 
is a win-win situation. It will help them in terms of 
generating power from solar energy, and I think will continue 
your effort to make sure that photovoltaic shingles are 
available, and you may want to comment on it.
    Mr. Richardson. Well, I thank you, because we have a very 
good program in solar energy. We have the Million Solar Roofs 
Program. We are doing a lot of innovative photovoltaic work, in 
fact, in the southwest, at our solar energy renewable lab, NREL 
in Colorado, in Golden, Colorado. In this connection, Mr. 
Pastor, I was discussing with other Cabinet members just 
yesterday ways that in the electricity restructuring bill we 
can bring some type of solar or power plant investment into 
Indian reservations.
    But the point I would like to make to this subcommittee is 
that these renewable monies that we have in there are good for 
our energy security. They reduce our emissions; they address 
the problems of climate change. I think as you mentioned, the 
management of these programs is a lot better. It is being run 
very effectively and efficiently, and I would hope that this 
subcommittee also sees these as encouraging new technologies 
that will be export-intensive; that will bring us jobs, and, if 
I could, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Reicher who runs this program--do you 
want to add anything, Dan?
    Mr. Reicher. Mr. Pastor, Mr. Chairman, we are very excited 
about the work with the tribes on renewables. These are often 
areas of the country without electricity or easy access to 
electricity. More generally, we are making real progress with 
renewables across the country, major new wind installations in 
Minnesota and Iowa, big new biomass facilities in Louisiana, 
California, work in Indiana, Illinois, Vermont. We have major 
commitments to solar energy, literally, from Maine to Illinois 
to New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Hawaii. 
Superconductivity, which this subcommittee supports investments 
in has had some big breakthroughs in the Midwest. So, there is 
a great deal going on, and we think that the work is very 
important, and we appreciate the support.

                     power marketing administration

    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman--or Mr. Secretary, my last 
question deals with the Power Marketing Administration, and I 
read on page 15, that beginning in Fiscal Year 2000, the 
administration's proposed policy is that PMAs will no longer 
seek appropriations for power purchases used to firm the 
variable hydroelectric power or for wheeling Federal power 
across other utilities' transmission lines.
    As you know, in the West, the PMAs have brought electricity 
to the most remote, isolated areas. This was a commitment that 
the Federal Government made to ensure that the rural areas 
would have power at a reasonable cost, and this policy which I 
think is rough, may cause problems to the customers that rely 
on the power--like WAPA in the West. As you know, WAPA has an 
extensive infrastructure in the West, and I would only hope 
that as you develop this policy that you take under 
consideration that there may be a need for a transition rather 
than just this rough change in policy, and I would like for you 
to share your thoughts on this change in policy.
    Mr. Richardson. Well, we will--we know that this so-called 
power wheeling has caused a little bit of concern, especially 
with some of the northwest members. We will work to address 
some of these concerns. We have to explain our proposal better, 
and my Chief Financial Officer, I would like him to visit with 
you and your staff. I think we can address some of the Members' 
and Senators' concerns, but, Mr. Pastor, we want electricity 
restructuring. We want everybody to be competitive, and some of 
the PMAs, they are part of the Department of Energy--I 
shouldn't say whine--they whine a little bit sometimes, and 
they whine to you. We are trying to make them a little more 
competitive, but maybe in this particular case, we haven't 
explained what we want to do well enough. We want them to be a 
little more competitive. We want them to run a little better. 
They are doing a good job, but before you address this 
legislatively, let us explain it in a more effective way.
    Mr. Pastor. Well, I appreciate the invitation to continue 
the dialogue because as much as they whine and as much as they 
are concerned, the reality is, I think that they also have to 
consider their ultimate customer. In many cases, the customer 
is a rural area, isolated, and may be concerned that a change 
in policy is going to cost them in terms of higher prices and 
the intent for developing this infrastructure was that we would 
get power to the most isolated areas. It was a Federal 
investment, and the customer, our constituents, would get power 
that they could afford, and so I think that is the concern. As 
you well know, coming from the West, the power marketing 
administrations play a very important role.
    Mr. Richardson. I understand, and let me assure you, you 
didn't see in our proposal any effort to privatize them or sell 
them off as in other years; we are not doing that. That doesn't 
mean that they and others shouldn't run, like all of us, a 
little more efficiently. But I understand your point, and we 
are not trying to burden them; we will explain it better, but 
let us have this dialogue.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. The gentleman from 
Iowa, Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and first of 
all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be on 
this committee; I am really looking forward to it, to work with 
you and all the members on the committee, and if you think you 
are new, Mr. Secretary, I am really new on this committee.
    First of all, I guess I would just like to associate myself 
with the concerns that Mr. Pastor just talked about. I have a 
lot of communities, rural electricts, that derive power from 
the PMAs, and, obviously, it is a major cost issue in my part 
of the country, too. So if you are going to have a briefing or 
a conversation, we would sure like to be a part of that also.
    Mr. Richardson. Of course, okay.

                         wind energy tax credit

    Mr. Latham. Thank you.
    One thing, and it was alluded to earlier, is that there is 
a huge amount of wind generation activity going on in my part 
of the country and my district. I think one of the largest, if 
not the largest, wind generation farm in the country is going 
to be right in the center of my district, and I was just 
curious, is the Administration going to be supporting and 
pushing the extension of the wind energy tax credit and 
actively a part of that?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, let me say that we have a new 
commitment in Dan Reicher's office towards wind and I am very 
eager to see some of your facilities. This is very important to 
us. What is important about wind is it is meeting its 
technology goals. This is a renewable that is working. To give 
one example, electric power from wind turbines in 1988 cost 
between 30 cents and 40 cents per kilowatt hour, and through 
aggressive research and cooperation with industry in R&D, we 
have been able to reduce costs since then to between 4 cents 
and 6 cents per kilowatt hour, a reduction in costs of more 
than 80 percent. We have some research on the next generation 
turbines to reduce the cost even further to 2.5 cents per 
kilowatt hour by 2002. We think this is very important.
    Dan, do you have any more that the Congressman would be 
interested in?
    Mr. Latham. Yes, as far as the extension of the tax credit.
    Mr. Richardson. Yes, we support that; it is excellent.

                   biorenewables research consortium

    Mr. Latham. You will be pushing it. Okay, good.
    As you are probably aware, Iowa State University is home of 
the Department's Ames Laboratory, and there is a memorandum of 
understanding with DOE and the USDA as far as the biorenewables 
resource consortium. I would just ask you, I guess, to comment 
about what you think, and not everyone, obviously, supports 
biomass for this kind of research, but what do you think? Is it 
promising? What kind of future do we have?
    Mr. Richardson. I think it is promising, and, you are 
right, at Ames, which is one of the few labs I have not been 
to--I have been to 28----
    Mr. Latham. You can come out; we will go to Ames, and we 
will go up with wind generators and have a great trip.
    Mr. Richardson. Sounds great, okay. I am serious, I would 
like to do that.
    This is promising, the whole area of biofuels, the whole 
area of biomass power, the collaborative work we are doing with 
the Agriculture Department, the Forest Products Division of the 
Agriculture Department, because what we are able to do is 
produce different combinations of fuels, of different powers of 
chemicals from the different feedstocks. We think this is very 
promising, and this is going to be, I think, another way that 
we demonstrate that biomass is going to be an effective 
competitor to the imported fossil fuels. So, we are going to 
continue this program and we think it is promising.

                          biodiesel rulemaking

    Mr. Latham. Great, I appreciate that. I know the chairman's 
interest in brevity, and I have another hearing too, but last 
year in the omnibus appropriations bill, we had biodiesel 
provisions in there, and it said the Secretary shall before 
January 1st of 1999, issue a rule establishing procedures for 
implementation. Has that rule been issued, and, if not----
    Mr. Richardson. In other words, no. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Latham. So, we obviously have missed our January 1st, 
1999 rulemaking.
    Mr. Richardson. On the diesel, it is being developed. 
[Laughter.]
    Let us do better there.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Latham. We are delighted to 
welcome a new member, Mr. Clyburn from South Carolina, and the 
time is yours.
    Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Secretary 
Richardson for his testimony here today and pledge to you, Mr. 
Chairman, and to the Secretary, my cooperation as we are trying 
to develop an appropriations bill that will meet the needs of 
the various programs we discussed here today while ensuring 
that taxpayers receive a good return on their dollars.
    First of all, let me add my association with the concerns 
expressed by Mr. Pastor and Mr. Latham as it relates to the 
PMAs. As you know, in rural South Carolina, I have those 
concerns as well. Mr. Secretary, as you well know, the 
Department of Energy has a significant presence in South 
Carolina. I took note of the fact that you spent your very 
first day on the job down at the Savannah River site, and I 
hope we can count on your interest not waning in that. But I 
wanted to express my strong support for SRS' high level waste 
Alternate Source Processing Program. I know the Department has 
budgetary constraints and must balance competing interests, and 
it may be useful for you and I to meet privately to discuss 
this, but I want you to be aware of my interest in this 
program.

                yucca mountain nuclear waste repository

    I think I only have one real question outside of my 
interest in the PMAs, and that is the characterization of the 
Yucca Mountain program, as you know. In my opinion, the Federal 
Government has not met its responsibilities, and the result is 
that South Carolina electricity customers are paying a 
disproportionate share of the Federal debt. I think that is a 
bit unfair, and I would like for you to give me briefly your 
vision of what is going to happen with that program.
    Mr. Richardson. Thank you, Congressman. First, on Savannah 
River, it is one of our strongest facilities, and I appreciated 
the way that you spoke up for it when we decided on the pit 
disassembly. I know your views; I think we responded to them. 
Savannah River has three key facilities for the Department of 
Energy. It is a community that is supportive of our Department, 
and we are supportive of the relationship. It is going to 
continue; it is going to flourish.
    On your question, Congressman, and I know Savannah River 
has done its share for the country in foreign fuel and domestic 
fuel and waste, I appreciate what you said. I have put forth 
before the Congress--I have floated a proposal for 
consideration on nuclear waste that basically says that the 
Department of Energy would take title to the waste at the 72 
different sites on an interim basis until we have made a 
definitive decision on Yucca Mountain as the permanent 
repository. Now, that decision is to be made in the year 2001.
    I don't want to get into a legislative train wreck with the 
Congress, which in the past has voted very overwhelmingly to 
say that there should be interim storage at Yucca Mountain. We 
think the science and transportation factors dictate that we be 
very careful that we find ways to work together. This proposal 
that I have made, we are not necessarily endorsing it or 
putting it in legislative language; it is a way to start a 
dialogue with the Congress so that States like yours and 
delegations in the Congress can be assured that we have a 
policy.
    Now, under my plan that I floated, the utilities would have 
to drop all their lawsuits to the Department of Energy to the 
Federal Government. We are liable now because we have not met 
these deadlines. And from the utility fund, we would want--it 
is about $7 billion to construct this permanent repository--it 
would pay for us taking title. Now, this doesn't mean that you 
are dramatically changing what exists today. It basically means 
that we would contract out to make sure that this waste is 
properly stored and maintained as it is now.
    I don't know what kind of response we are going to get. I 
am testifying before the Energy and Commerce Committee on this. 
Some utilities like it, Wisconsin likes it; others don't. This 
is a new proposal on the table. What I want to avoid with this 
Congress and this committee is a showdown on this issue. I 
think we can work together to try to address this very serious 
concern.
    Mr. Clyburn. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Knollenberg from 
Michigan.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and, 
incidentally, let me congratulate you, which I haven't had the 
opportunity to do; this is our first meeting. I want to also 
congratulate Mr. Visclosky as ranking member. We do look 
forward to working with both sides of the aisle, and we do a 
pretty good job I think, as you said.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate you on your position; 
it has been a while since you have held it, but it is the first 
time that we have had a chance to really talk, and I appreciate 
your coming forward today.

                              closure fund

    I wanted to talk about the Closure Fund. I know you 
expressed your optimism, at least your support of that. This 
Closure Fund, as you know, does something about closing down 
some of those sites, Rocky Flats being one, that brings us, 
hopefully, some successes; something I think we dearly need. I 
remember back in 1995, when I first became a member of this 
subcommittee, they were projecting that the date that they 
might reach closure would be somewhere around 2065. We found 
that totally unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable, and so we 
engineered some ideas about bringing about something that would 
put many of these sites online for closure sooner. And, so we 
adopted sites, such as Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, and others 
to close them down. The idea being that by closing them down, 
by bringing about a success, we will have more money for the 
Savannah Rivers of the world, the Hanfords and the others, 
because they have problems too. We don't mean to look away from 
them, but I do think that we need a victory.
    One of the things I have noticed is the budget does not 
allow for the monies that are needed to bring closure about by 
2006. Instead, it is 2010, and I guess my first question to you 
is what is the amount of money that would be needed to bring it 
to closure by 2006, and why haven't you asked for more money to 
bring that about?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, first, Congressman, we appreciate the 
work that you have done on this. I know this is a big interest 
of yours. I am here to tell you that I am committed to closing 
Rocky Flats by the year 2006.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I am glad you said that.
    Mr. Richardson. And the amount that we have requested, we 
believe, can do that. Now, the contractors are running around 
saying they need more money, and I hope you don't listen to 
them, because with the budget we have, I believe we can make 
that target.
    Closure of Rocky Flats, Congressman, is also contingent on 
solving other problems I have with the opening of the facility 
in New Mexico, and waste coming from Idaho. So, I would hope 
that you will help. You have taken a big interest in this 
program, not just the funding, but also with the targets, that 
when we look at this prospective meeting and summit of 
governors and of other elected officials to set up targets for 
all the other facilities just the way you did for us on Rocky, 
that we do it for the Mounds and Fernald which I will be 
visiting soon and do it in a systematic way. But I can assure 
you the amount we are asking for Rocky Flats this year--we are 
requesting $100 million more in our cleanup funds than we did 
last year. It is enough, so----
    Mr. Knollenberg. It is enough?
    Mr. Richardson. It is enough, so these tales that they need 
more money because that way they can complete the cleanup or 
proceed with a contract, don't listen to them. We can do the 
job, and I can assure you we will.

                          Management Concerns

    Mr. Knollenberg. Well, I appreciate your going on the 
record making that statement. We will have the continuation, I 
am sure, of this debate.
    Let me go to another question that I think has to do with--
and some of this is not on your watch, not on your time, but it 
is a concern that many of us have--it has to do with 
management. You spoke of the need for better management, and I 
don't disagree with that. I think the DOE, very honestly, can 
be assessed as being in some difficulty when it comes to having 
people in positions at the top. If you look at--let me just ask 
you, how many positions in DOE require Senate confirmation?
    Mr. Richardson. Too many, but--[Laughter.]
    My point in answering that--you know I am having difficulty 
getting my nominees confirmed.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me just say this, I understand that 
you are. I can probably answer that question for you. I believe 
there are five. You can disagree out there, and if you think 
so----
    Mr. Richardson. No, you are right, there are five, and 
there may be a sixth.
    Mr. Knollenberg. And there may be a sixth when you consider 
the position of the Assistant Secretary of EM. I don't disagree 
with you that you are having some difficulty, and some of this 
is not on your shoulders or shouldn't be if it is not on your 
watch. But there has been a little bit of a revolving door at 
the top, and the problem is there appears to be no revolving 
door at all at some of those other positions, because what we 
have are acting individuals, and, frankly, acting people I 
don't think get you there.
    You spoke of this need for better management, and I quite 
agree with you, but you also, I think, need managers. You need 
some people in position to actually manage, and I don't see 
that with acting managers. My concern is that there must be--
and you may have some thoughts about this--there must be some 
very difficult thinking going on about finding a qualified 
person for this office. I would just like to ask you why or why 
is it so difficult? If it is so difficult to find that one 
person, then, perhaps, we need to--and I am just asking--break 
it up in some fashion. But there appears to be a deficiency of 
leaders in positions where there should be strength.
    Mr. Richardson. Well, you have pointed to a very important 
problem, and I will say, Congressman, we have for the job that 
you care about--I know about the Assistant Secretary for 
Environmental Management--we have somebody up before the 
Senate; her nomination has been up there for a while; a woman 
who has run NASA, the Space Center in Houston. She is good; 
hopefully, she will be confirmed soon. But we have had her up 
here.
    This right here, Rose Gottemoeller who runs all my Russia 
programs, has been up for about three months now, and I know 
that the Senate was preoccupied with other problems, but this 
affects me when my nominees--and they are very capable--aren't 
confirmed. The Deputy Secretary who comes from the Office of 
Management and Budget who is like the Department's manager is 
still pending. I think these are going to be resolved soon, but 
I can't stress to you the importance that we have and we attach 
to attracting good managers.
    This woman, Carolyn Huntoon, her main strength is 
management. She manages well; she managed the space operation, 
and we think that those skills are paramount in this job of 
environmental management which I know that you have paid a lot 
of attention to.
    Mr. Knollenberg. At the Office of EM, for example, we have 
had an acting secretary since, I say, October of 1997. I admit 
that Mr. Alm didn't leave until January 1, but the announcement 
was made in October, and we still don't have anybody with their 
hands on the wheel who has the capacity to lead as something 
other than acting. I am reminding you, I know of what you know, 
but I want it on the record that we have some concern about 
that.
    Mr. Richardson. Yes.
    Mr. Knollenberg. We truly do, so I--I have consumed, I 
think, more than my share of time here--but I did want to get 
those things out, and I will wait for the next round for a 
couple of other questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Edwards, from 
Texas.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say that 
having worked with you on the Military Construction 
Subcommittee where you served as chairman, I look forward to 
working with you here. Your leadership there was strong, 
decisive, bipartisan, and fair, and I know those same skills 
will come to this subcommittee and make a great contribution to 
important issues under your jurisdiction here. I look forward 
to working with you.
    Mr. Secretary, sorry I missed your opening statements, I 
was----
    Mr. Richardson. You didn't miss much. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Edwards. I was at a Thursday morning meeting in which 
you and I used to sit together. But I am thrilled about your 
appointment as Secretary and look forward to working with you 
as well. If what I touch on in my one or two questions has been 
addressed, please let me know, and I will refer back to the 
record.
    I think about what we do in this Congress--most of what we 
do a year or two or three after we are gone will be quickly 
forgotten. But if I look at one legacy I hope would come out of 
this committee and all our work together, it would be that 
somehow and someway we had made life safer for our children and 
grandchildren vis a vis potential threats from nuclear, 
chemical, and biological attacks against the 50 States of the 
United States.

Control of Soviet Nuclear Materials and Chemical and Biological Weapons

    I would like to ask two questions, basically: one, what is 
your overall summary of how we are doing in the former Soviet 
states in helping them get control of their nuclear materials, 
and, secondly, what do you think the role is of the Department 
of Energy in relation to the Department of Defense in chemical 
and biological weapons? Is there some expertise DOE can bring 
to the table? If I were playing devil's advocate, and I said 
why not just put all of the efforts to deal with chemical and 
biological weapons and threats against the United States under 
the auspices of a much larger Department of Defense, what would 
be your response to that?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, Congressman, what we bring at the 
Department of Energy is technology from our National 
Laboratories. For instance, the construction of and the 
research and development of hand-held detectors, ways that 
border guards can detect a nuclear accident or a nuclear spill; 
little portable machines that we are developing at our National 
Laboratories, specifically, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Los 
Alamos.
    When the President, a month ago, had his chem-bio 
initiative, it was the National Laboratories of the DOE that 
did the most sophisticated technology that is being used by our 
local cops and firemen, the first responders, that are not used 
by some sophisticated scientists but that can be used against 
the potential of chem-bio attack in this country.
    We work very closely with the Department of Defense. They 
have the main funding for responding to an attack. Our funding 
is relatively modest. I think in fiscal year 1999 it is $19 
million, and we are asking for $32 million based on the renewed 
threat.
    But in terms of our programs with Russia, we think that 
they are being managed well. A recent GAO report, while citing 
some management concerns, came out and said that our program to 
manage with the Russians the safety of their nuclear weapons, 
their materials, the potential theft of weapons, the security 
of sites, nuclear cities initiative, keeping Russian scientists 
from selling out to other countries was working well, and, Rose 
Gottemoeller, who is here, runs our program. We are right now 
working at 40 sites in Russia, Russian sites, and we have 
contained approximately 650 metric tons of plutonium or highly 
enriched uranium. We have security systems right now at 25 out 
of the existing 53 sites, and we are upgrading 100 buildings at 
the remaining 28 sites.
    One of the problems--since you know this issue and you know 
Russia--is Russian guards have no blankets, because they are 
not getting paid. There are no locks on the gates, so you are 
also doing very elemental things. The guards don't have shoes 
because of the economic conditions; and they are not getting 
paid. So, we have to have a program, and we need the support of 
the Congress to make this program work.
    Mr. Edwards. Well, I appreciate the work the Department's 
already done, and sometimes you get less credit for preventing 
a disaster than responding to it or less credit for preventing 
a war than winning a war, but, clearly, prevention is better 
than reaction later.
    I will follow up with some of your leadership on the 
question of $32 million, I think, was that the request for 
chem-bio research?
    Mr. Richardson. Yes.
    Mr. Edwards. Because maybe there are other areas of the 
Government that are getting large amounts of research, but if 
one begins with the presumption that our first responsibility 
in this Congress is to defend, literally, the lives of our 
American citizens, the fact that we would be putting out a $1.5 
trillion budget with $32 million into research to defend over 
200 million citizens from the reality of a chemical or 
biological attack seems amazingly small. And I would like to 
get a better sense of maybe where all the different research is 
going on.
    Mr. Richardson. We will provide that for you.
    [The information follows:]

Federal Research and Development to Address the Threat of Chemical and 
                           Biological Weapons

    The Department of Energy Chemical and Biological 
Nonproliferation program is one of several complementary 
Federal research programs focused on the chemical and 
biological threat. The Department of Defense R&D programs 
(including the Chemical and Biological Defense Program and 
several DARPA programs) are primarily aimed at military, as 
opposed to civilian applications, although some areas of 
research certainly have dual use. The Department of Health and 
Human Services is developing new vaccines and medical 
therapeutics. The interagency Technical Support Working Group 
supports a broad range of near-term counter-terrorism 
technology development efforts, some of which specifically deal 
with the chemical and biological threat. Research is also 
supported by the Department of Justice through National 
Institute of Justice and FBI programs.
    In addition to these research programs, other important 
programs underway at several agencies emphasize operational, 
training and acquisition dimensions of preparing for chemical 
and biological attacks. However, the threat of domestic use of 
chemical and biological weapons, whether by terrorists or 
national states, must be viewed as a long-term problem. We must 
bolster our preparation and response systems to ensure our 
citizens are not vulnerable. Research investments today and in 
the coming years will be required in order to develop, 
demonstrate and deploy technologies and systems that can offer 
increased civilian protection and effective response 
capabilities. The Department of Energy is committed to 
developing such technologies and systems, and to working with 
other federal, State and local planners and responders that 
ultimately must use them.

                    chemical and biological weapons

    Mr. Edwards. And if we had additional money, what would we 
do? I think we need to redefine the whole concept of national 
security. If I were a terrorist--I am for a limited Missile 
Defense System--but if I were a terrorist, I am not going to 
send an ICBM into the United States knowing your Nation can 
then wipe me off the face of the Earth, because you will know 
exactly from which place that missile was launched. I am going 
to get a cup of anthrax and put it in the water supply of a 
small town in Texas or a mid-size city in Iowa and terrify 
every family in America. We need not just small incremental 
changes in this area, we need to be sure we are putting the 
resources there that we need to. So, I look forward to 
following up with your people in trying to determine what the 
proper role is. I don't want to duplicate what DOD is doing or 
somebody else, but if you have expertise that others can't 
duplicate, we ought to take advantage of that and, I believe, 
as just one voice. We ought to make that a real priority within 
our Federal Government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
from New Jersey.

                         fusion energy funding

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
pleasure to work with you. Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for 
coming up to New Jersey last Friday and for invoking the fact 
that you visited the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. It was good 
to have your irrepressible self up there on behalf of the 
Department. That lab, as you are aware, you saw first-hand, is 
doing some remarkable research, and this leads to my first 
question about fusion research.
    The Fusion Energy Sciences Program, as you are aware, Mr. 
Secretary, did suffer severe budget cuts over the last few 
years back, going from $300 million to approximately $230 
million today. For the last few years, the budget has leveled 
out. Do you anticipate requesting increases for this program in 
coming years, and what would be your general funding 
projections?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, as I told the Princeton people in 
your presence, I think that fusion research is critically 
important. I had gotten little doses of the good work when I 
represented Los Alamos in the Congress, and I think the work at 
Princeton is outstanding. These fusion reductions, as I 
mentioned to you, weren't on my watch. Martha Krebs, my Science 
Director, is here. We want to secure proper funding this year. 
Quite frankly, because of the importance of fusion, I would 
like to see us do more in the outyears and the years ahead, and 
I want to work with you to do that.
    I also want to say to you that I appreciate your role in 
recognizing this great lab. I know it is not right in your 
district, but you have become sort of the patriarch to make 
sure that lab is properly funded, along with Congressman Holt, 
and we appreciate that.

                        tokamak decommissioning

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not sure I want to be classified as 
a patriarch, but I am a strong supporter. In the overall scheme 
of things, what disturbs me, if you look at the overall budget, 
nuclear energy for our country represents just under 20 percent 
of the Nation's electricity, yet we are investing far more in 
terms of issues like solar and renewable, and sometimes this 
appears to be skewed. I think fusion does represent, I think, a 
viable part of our future, and I am not alone in advocating for 
it.
    As you know, Mr. Secretary, this budget contains funding 
for the start of the decommissioning of the Tokamak machine at 
Princeton, some $10 million. I was surprised to see this 
funding contained in the program account for this task, and I 
am wondering why it is in there? Normally, when you have a 
decommissioning of machines and devices, it is in the EM 
account. Could you provide me with some sort of rationale as to 
why it is in the program account? Some might argue--and I would 
since I am interested in fusion--that other elements of the 
Fusion Program would have to be reduced to make room for the 
decommissioning activity.
    Mr. Richardson. Congressman, first of all, we put money in 
the budget for the decommissioning, and we thank you for your 
leadership on that. I had a chance to see this Tokamak 
facility, and it is operating--the decommissioning is going to 
operate effectively and efficiently. It has been a general 
practice of the Department that when a program reuses--plans to 
reuse a facility that what generally happens is that the 
program is responsible for decommissioning that facility, and--
--
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Actually, it was my understanding to the 
contrary, that normally decommissioning of machines and devices 
are carried out in the EM account, but what does history show?
    Mr. Richardson. History shows that we have some examples 
that support what I just mentioned: the National Spherical 
Torus Experiment at one of our labs; the main injector at Fermi 
National Accelerator; the B-factory at Stanford Linear 
Accelerator. Basically, we have established facilities. What we 
do is we refurbish or recycle many of our established assets 
for use in these new projects. In other words, we try to get 
the most out of the existing deployments.
    I would like to provide additional information for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]

                        Facility Decommissioning

    History shows that programs, other than EM, have 
refurbished and recycled many of their established facilities 
or assets for use in new projects. Recent examples include the 
Fermilab Main Injector and the B-Factory at SLAC which made use 
of existing site credits and, of course, the National Spherical 
Torus Experiment which is using part of the TFTR building and 
support systems. Basically this is done, by the programs, to 
maximize use of existing resources and infrastructure and 
minimize costs of new projects. For the fusion program, the 
TFTR building and support systems are a valuable resource which 
could be used for a future fusion device if the TFTR vacuum 
vessel and other contaminated systems could be removed.

            gao report on employment for russian scientists

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I understand where we can 
cannibalize and reuse things; that makes sense, but I do think 
we ought to try to spend as much money on new initiatives and 
less money for decommissioning of these types of accounts. I 
will continue to work with you to make sure that we put the 
money less into decommissioning--although, obviously, those are 
necessary expenses--and more into continuing research 
opportunities.
    I would like to shift, if I could, I just have a couple 
more minutes here. Recently, the General Accounting Office 
issued a report criticizing your program aimed at developing 
non-military jobs for Russian weapons scientists in Russia. 
This was reported at some length in the New York Times, 
initially, before the GAO report came out, so that the Russians 
do not leave to work for other nations unfriendly to the U.S. 
It is noted in that report that only 37 percent of the $63 
million spent through June 1998 on the program reached the 
Russian scientists. About 51 percent went to DOE for National 
Laboratories whose personnel administered and oversaw the 
individual projects. Is this what the Department envisioned for 
the program?
    Mr. Richardson. Let me say that this GAO report also said 
that this is a useful program and that we need to manage it 
better, but that they endorsed our objective of protecting 
nuclear scientists from defecting and also dealing with the 
whole issue of proliferation prevention. They did point out 
some management shortfalls that we are addressing.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. But the description concluded, and it 
was somewhat disturbing, that the DOE Lab officials did not 
know how many scientists are receiving funds or whether key 
scientists and institutes are being targeted. I don't know 
whether that is accurate or not. Obviously, given that sort of 
conclusion, that calls out for some major changes, and I assume 
those are in the offing.
    Mr. Richardson. Yes, well, we don't totally agree with 
that. They did point out some shortfalls; you mentioned one. We 
are trying to move the lab representation to about 50 percent 
rather than the 37 to 60 skew, but let me point out to you that 
I think that is sort of an unfair rap, because you want our lab 
scientists, the people that made our nuclear weapons and 
maintained them under the experts, to be involved in this 
program. They happen to be in Los Alamos and Sandia and our 
weapons labs, and you have to transport them to Russia; you 
can't move them. So, it is a little bit of a disingenuous 
attack, but we are addressing that. We want to spend more money 
in Russia with these scientists. We can assure you that on 
another criticism we are trying to make sure that there is 
commercialization. I think there is a total of $38 million that 
has been invested.
    My main point is that this is a very important objective. 
We need to manage it better, I agree, but the tenor of the 
press report was that this was a problem program, that money 
was being wasted, and I can assure you if you read the fine 
print of the report, they say that this program is important; 
that it achieves its objectives, and that it needs to have some 
management improvements.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, lastly, are the Russians taxing?
    Mr. Richardson. Right now----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think that is bizarre, but----
    Mr. Richardson. Yes, we are negotiating with the Russians 
when Primakov, the Prime Minister, comes here to meet with the 
Vice President next month. Hopefully, we will have a 
negotiation that will eliminate that tax. That has been a 
problem. There is a tax component; we don't think it should be 
in there, and we are trying to deal with it.
    Mr. Packard. Would the gentleman yield on that just for a 
moment so we don't have to come back to this issue, because I 
certainly wanted to discuss that, too? You have gotten the GAO 
report and its concerns. Hopefully, you will act on them.
    There is a lot of corruption in Russia. We know that. We 
would hope that this money does not filter to the wrong people. 
And hopefully, your oversight of the project will be sufficient 
to make certain that it gets to the right people.
    And secondly, I certainly want to emphasize what Mr. 
Frelinghuysen has already done, and that is that more money 
needs to go to the project and not to the oversight labs here 
in the United States.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Let me bring up one point before I go to Mr. 
Visclosky, and then I want to come back to my--a couple of 
questions that I would have.

                         richland reprogramming

    We have the reprogramming request that we received a few 
days ago on the Richland reprogramming--it is $53 million, 
which is a fairly sizeable reprogramming at least sizeable in 
what I am used to reprogramming as the chairman of other 
subcommittees. And it just arrived. You've had it for six 
months. Your people have had it for six months, and now it is 
laid on us to do the analysis work and to get it done in a few 
days or else we are going to be dismissing or laying off 700 
contract employees at Hanford. That is not a good position that 
this committee likes to be put in. We would hope that you would 
tell your people not to send a reprogramming with a deadline 
like that. Mr. Visclosky and I do not want to be responsible 
for laying off 700 contract people at Hanford. And yet, we do 
need a little time to analyze the reprogramming. You've had it 
six months, and then given us a week or two. That is not the 
way we would like to be treated. We hope that you will improve 
that.
    Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, you are right. We need to do 
better there. I have also had the same problem that Mr. 
Knollenberg referred to. I have some vacancies at Hanford 
because I want a strong team there. And it has taken me a while 
to move the team around and bring in some strong people. That 
was a factor in the delay. The head of the Richland office, the 
Office of River Protection, a general counsel position, the 
deputy--we have--we are going to be in the next 30 days moving 
some very strong people there.
    But you are right. You are right. There was a delay that is 
not acceptable. We have sent a message down that this needs to 
move faster. There is, though, Mr. Chairman, an urgency to move 
on this. And it is part of the privatization project. It is 
part of the privatization, which you all have wanted us to do.
    Mr. Packard. The merits of the request, Mr. Secretary, are 
not in question at all, and I think it will be processed as 
quickly as we can. It is just that we felt that we were treated 
a little bit with a hook that we didn't appreciate. And thank 
you very much. Mr. Visclosky?
    Mr. Visclosky. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.

                Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository

    Mr. Packard. Thank you. Then let me go on to some other 
questions. I was going to talk about the weapons programs in 
Russia and the closed cities and so forth, but you--we have 
talked about that sufficiently.
    The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has been an 
ongoing difficult problem for this committee and, of course, 
for your Department. And we recognize that. The administration 
has continued to oppose legislation to modify the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act and provide interim storage, and that has certainly 
put the Federal Government into a little bit of a difficult 
position. As I read further material, I find that lawsuits and 
costs and so forth could go from a couple of billion to $8 
billion dollars or more in trying to deal with this, and that 
is monies that I don't know where we could ever come up with.
    But at any rate, why does the Department still continue to 
refuse to make proposals, legislative or otherwise, in 
addressing this responsibility? And what is being done to 
literally solve the problem?
    Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to oppose 
interim storage at Yucca Mountain. It wasn't part of the 
legislation. We want good science to make decisions, not 
political factors. We want to make sure that the viability of 
Yucca, the suitability, which is not to be decided until the 
year 2001. As you know, I recently, at the end of last year, 
submitted to the Congress a report that says we should continue 
research on Yucca. There are no showstoppers. There are some 
water problems with that mountain. We would have to continue 
studying it.
    We have opposed interim storage because of the 
transportation factors. You have to move the waste to Yucca. We 
think science should make those decisions.
    But, Mr. Chairman, I have proposed something new. I did it 
before the Senate as a starting point to discuss, to have a 
dialogue, rather than engage in a veto fight that I believe 
took place a year ago. What I have proposed is, let us discuss 
ways in which we can bring environmentalists, the utilities, 
and the States together in a plan along this line. And this is 
not in concrete.
    The Department of Energy takes title to the waste at the 72 
sites that exist in the country. In exchange for that, we take 
responsibility. The utilities drop their lawsuits against us. 
As you mentioned, they have sued us, and we have had a couple 
of verdicts against us. That concerns me. That would perhaps 
come out of our budget. But that concerns all taxpayers.
    There is a fund of $7 billion in the utility fund that 
would be used to pay for this program. We think that we can 
achieve this. But maybe there is somebody else who has a 
proposal. I almost didn't get confirmed by the Senate, when I 
was told that we had no authority to float or negotiate. Well, 
I have that authority. I floated that with the Senate, and I am 
appearing before the Commerce Committee--Energy and Commerce 
now--in the next couple of weeks. And we have thrown that out. 
We know it is a problem, Mr. Chairman. And this committee has 
been positive in funding the activities at Yucca. We are 
spending about $500 million at Yucca to make sure it works; 
that we do the proper scientific work; that there is a proper 
foundation. And it is a serious problem.
    Mr. Packard. As you well know, Mr. Secretary, leaving the 
spent fuel where it is at is probably more dangerous and more 
problematic for us than finding an interim solution. That is 
my--and I am sure this committee's--biggest concern is that we 
just don't have a policy that the companies and the agencies 
can deal with. Is your proposal going to lead us to a solution 
on an interim basis?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, I hope so. It has received mixed 
reviews--stony silences. It is kind of out there. I just did it 
last week. We are also trying to get some cost data. This is 
not perfect. I just don't want us to have a showdown where we 
are forced, in our judgement, to do something that 
scientifically is not sound. And that is to move ahead with 
interim storage. We would have to transport all the waste to 
Yucca. I think we can do it safely, but all I am saying is 
right now there is waste at these 72 sites. The utilities are 
managing them. They are doing a good job. What we would do is 
take title to them until we have permanent storage. So you are 
not I think dramatically changing the----
    Mr. Packard. Have we agreed to pay for the cost to the 
utilities for storage?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, there is a fund. Yes, there is a fund 
that the utilities contributed to for the creation of the Yucca 
Mountain site, $7 billion. So there is a fund to pay for this. 
I just don't want taxpayers to get stuck with new funding for 
this.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. We will go to Mr. Edwards then. Mr. 
Edwards, okay. Mr. Forbes?

                        Cleanup of Nuclear waste

    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I know 
that you share a great priority with getting cleanup done, and 
I would like to visit with that a little bit more if I could 
for a moment.
    And I do appreciate the $100 million increase that you have 
requested, I guess making that a total of $5.7 billion for 
cleanup at your various nuclear sites across the country. There 
is I think probably an institutional frustration, and I mean 
that both from the Department of Energy perhaps and certainly 
from Congress' point of view that our constituents would like 
to see us get these sites cleaned up yesterday. And I know 
because of financial constraints, we have to plod along and 
hope that we can maximize our cleanup with the monies given.
    There was one proposal apparently that has either been 
presented to the Office of Environmental Management over at DOE 
that looked at maybe the private contractors coming in. Perhaps 
at the surplus defense nuclear facilities, where we are now 
storing some of the hazardous waste, that if we deactivated 
some of those sites and had a private contractor come in that 
some of those savings could perhaps be invested in having that 
contractor clean up the site, even go to the private 
marketplace and get dollars to expedite cleanup, and then on a 
fixed-base cost the Department would pay for that.
    Has that idea got any currency with you in the Department, 
or are there other ideas that might be floated around. I know 
that all of our Departments and agencies had to be very 
creative in approaching a lot of these problems. Could you 
comment a little bit about that?
    Mr. Richardson. You know, I don't have the specifics on 
that proposal, but I am ready to consider ways to make sure 
this cleanup works, and it hasn't. I think you were overly 
generous. You said perhaps funding reasons were responsible for 
us not doing the cleanup. We have not managed these sites the 
right way. We have not stayed--I think Mr. Knollenberg will 
tell you, we have not met our deadlines--Hanford being a big 
one. We have had some problems with Brookhaven, too.
    So I am ready to look at all options that accelerate the 
cleanup, and at this upcoming session with governors and others 
where we look at all our objectives in the cleanup area, at all 
our sites. And set up some standards and funding goals and 
principles that we are ready to look at. We don't have a 
national policy. You pointed out the problem. We have separate 
policies, and I think use of the private sector more 
efficiently is important.
    Now, I will tell you that some of the commercial sites, we 
have States not wanting us to use them, because they are not 
licensed in some cases by States. So we have to take that into 
account. We have to make sure that these sites are fully 
certified and that they are safe. This is a--my staff is 
telling me to tell you that you have a very good new idea. 
[Laughter.]

            Brookhaven National laboratory Employee Concerns

    Mr. Forbes. I thank your staff. Thank you. Well, I take it 
that the Department is receptive, and I appreciate that, Mr. 
Secretary. I have one other quick question.
    I know that some of the employees from Brookhaven National 
Laboratory have discussed, I believe with you directly, that 
some of the nuclear facility workers felt negatively impacted 
if, in fact, there is a reorganization, a RIF, or even a 
downsizing, based on a decision out of the Chicago office that 
prevented them from partaking in retraining and getting 
priority in reappointments to other nuclear facilities and the 
like. Could you comment about their concern?
    Mr. Richardson. We will come up and talk to you about that.
    I don't see it as that big a problem. I think when I was at 
Brookhaven I said to you that I felt the budget would be stable 
there. There would be no layoffs. And I think I can stick with 
that. The issue of the training vis a vis the Chicago office, I 
am going to look into. But that is part of--that is part of why 
I want to reorganize this Department.
    Now, I think there are good reasons perhaps why New York 
reports to Chicago. But maybe there is a better way. And, you 
know, there are these webs of reporting that have been at the 
Department for years, and I don't know if you remember--you 
were probably too young. Admiral Watkins, who was a previous 
Secretary of Energy, used to say that what we had was all these 
fiefdoms everywhere. Nobody knew what they were doing. Well, I 
don't think they are fiefdoms, but sometimes I have difficulty 
getting a handle on who reports to whom and how we can manage 
ourselves better. But we will come up and talk to you about 
that.
    Mr. Forbes. I appreciate that, and I do concur with the 
concern about the fiefdoms. I think it is part of the reason 
why Brookhaven National Laboratory went through the difficult 
time it did, because of these cross reporting--lines of 
reporting, et cetera. But I thank you for taking a look at 
that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Knollenberg.

       Solar and Renewable Funding Versus Nuclear Energy Funding

    Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and Mr. 
Secretary we will come back with a couple of more questions.
    I want to focus a little bit on Kyoto and the climate 
change issue. And notwithstanding, of course, the position of 
the House and the Senate, the administration has gone ahead and 
signed the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty I believe is flawed. I 
don't think it is going to do anything to reduce CO2 
emissions, and that I believe is the goal of something I want 
to talk about which is the CCTI, the President's initiative.
    I just want to take a moment, and look at the science that 
is being conducted by the Department of Energy relative to 
CO2. In your prepared remarks, and you might have 
made this comment when you were making your abbreviated 
delivery, you mentioned the investment, you looked at this as 
being an investment. And I would like to look at the return on 
the investment with respect to the CCTI. It is true, is it not, 
that the CCTI is an effort to reduce CO2, greenhouse 
gases?
    Mr. Richardson. Yes.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Yes. My concern is why is the focus then 
on the solar and the renewables when you look at the kind of 
viability of those areas with respect to what we currently have 
on the table? For example, coal is about 50 percent. I know 
there have to be ways to clean coal. Nuclear is about 20 
percent. It doesn't produce any CO2, greenhouse 
gases. Hydro is, I think, about 10 percent and then natural gas 
is in that range of double digits perhaps, and that maybe I've 
got those backwards, but nuclear I know is 20 percent.
    It seems to me that if the aim is to reduce CO2, 
that we should be focusing on the areas that really do produce 
a minimum or zero CO2. I think you would agree with 
that.
    So my drive here is to, my emphasis is to put some thought 
on the nuclear side. And we can talk about the thrust and the 
achievements in the areas of wind and solar, but the fact is 
that they produce way less than one percent, a fraction, a tiny 
fraction of one percent of today's electric power. So it would 
seem to me that the focus should be on those things that do 
work, those things that are in the marketplace that are market 
tested. And I would wish for one that tomorrow, we could wake 
up and overnight solar would be a source of power that would be 
commercially viable and effective and that would reduce the 
problems we have with if CO2 is, in fact, that 
problem to the world that some suspect that it is. That could 
be debated, of course, but I am--I just would like to have your 
thoughts about where can or why can't we put more focus on 
those areas that do work instead of those that are still as yet 
untried? They are tried, but they are not proven, I should say.
    Mr. Richardson. Well, Congressman, let me answer it this 
way. First, we are not trying to implement the Kyoto Agreement 
through the back door by funding some of these renewable 
initiatives. Let me just be clear about that.
    Second, if you look at our budget, we have some increases, 
and we recognize the importance of nuclear energy. And we also 
recognize, and our spokesman at the Buenos Aires conference on 
climate change that recently took place late last year 
mentioned nuclear power, the nuclear component in our 
discussion.
    Mr. Knollenberg. And, Mr. Secretary, not to interrupt, but 
so did Ambassador John Rich, when we spoke with him in Europe 
during the month of January. So those--they are advocates, I 
don't mean to suggest there's not.
    Mr. Richardson. But if you look at funding, we are doing 
well. We are doing well in the Nuclear Energy Research 
Initiative, and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program. 
I hope we can do better. Last year, we requested $10 million 
for this, and it was cut out by the Congress. This is research 
that we think is important.
    Coal research. I think--and Dan--well, this is fossil 
fuels--we are doing more natural gas and coal research. We 
think--let me tell you why we think renewables and energy 
efficiency reduction of carbon, some of the requests are 
important. They are not back door attempts to bring climate 
change approval through the Congress. When you invest in 
renewables, we think it improves our energy security. It does 
reduce emissions. It maintains our lead as a country in science 
and technology. It gives us abundant supplies of affordable 
energy. It creates jobs, maintains a strong national economy, 
so I would hope when you look at what we have proposed in 
renewables, and there is an increase in energy efficiency 
programs--there is a slight increase, that you see them as 
something that is important to our national energy policy and 
not as climate change initiatives.
    I am not disagreeing with any points that you made. Coal, 
when I was in New Mexico, clean coal research and coal 
gasification. We want to have a pollution-free power plant, 
coal power plant.

            alternative fuel vehicles within the department

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me just interrupt here, because I 
agree with part of what you say. But you know in the increases, 
the solar and renewable increases, they are substantial, it is 
73 percent. Solar thermal is 37; wind is 56 percent; and yet 
nuclear is way down to a pinch, hardly--it is not an increase 
at all. And I agree that we have done some things there.
    Here's the concern I really have, and I think I could 
formalize this into a question. We know that DOE supports 
these, and you support them. But does DOE use these themselves? 
Do you, for example, could you supply for the record--if you 
can't, can somebody on your staff indicate how many automobiles 
that DOE has that are, in your fleet, that are electric or 
hybrid?
    Mr. Richardson. Well, I--one of my two is gas.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Yours? I mean the Department.
    Mr. Richardson. Oh, but seriously.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I am talking about DOE.
    Mr. Richardson. No, my DOE car, my second car.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Good.
    Mr. Richardson. I only have--I shouldn't tell you have many 
cars I have. I have two. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Knollenberg. Well, how much does the Department, how 
many vehicles does the Department have? If the Department is so 
strongly in favor of using solar and renewables, how many 
vehicles do you have?
    Mr. Reicher. We are--Mr. Knollenberg, we are actually ahead 
of the requirements under the Energy Policy Act that was 
established in 1992.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Well, the State of Michigan has 300 
vehicles, for example, that they use that are natural gas. How 
many does the DOE have?
    Mr. Reicher. We have hundreds of alternative fuel 
vehicles--natural gas, ethanol, electric. Hybrids are just 
coming out this year.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Could I have a complete list of all of 
those, and specifically the kind of vehicle that it is and what 
it consumes?
    [The information follows:]

   Number and Type of Alternative Fuel Vehicles at the Department of 
                                 Energy

    At the end of fiscal year 1998, the Department of Energy 
had 650 alternative fuel vehicles in its fleet. Most of the 
vehicles are natural gas, but we also have ethanol, propane, 
and electric vehicles as shown in the table below. The vehicles 
are primarily pickup trucks and vans, but include some compact 
and mid-size sedans. We expect to add 1,000 alternative fuel 
vehicles to the Department's fleet during fiscal year 1999 and 
our planning and acquisition efforts are well underway. Barring 
any unforeseen ordering or delivery complications, we expect at 
the end of fiscal year 1999, to have 1,650 alternative fuel 
vehicles as shown below.

                               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Estimated in fleet or awaiting delivery at end of fiscal year 1998                   Estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   fy 1999
                                                                                                    ------------
                                      Compact     Mid/full-     Pick-up        Van       Total all    Total all
                                       sedan      size sedan     truck                  models 1998  models 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas.......................           55            1          246          252          554        1,108
Ethanol...........................  ...........           46  ...........           45           91          453
Propane...........................  ...........  ...........            3  ...........            3           24
Electric..........................  ...........  ...........            2  ...........            2           65
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................           55           47          251          297          650        1,650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   number and type of alternative fuel vehicles at the department of 
                                 energy

    Mr. Reicher. Yes. Absolutely. And it is the biggest mix is 
natural gas, and then ethanol.

          national renewable energy laboratory's power sources

    Mr. Knollenberg. The other question I would have and I will 
conclude with that, Mr. Chairman, is that we have mentioned the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, and 
I've been there. If there is any place on earth that should 
rely solely on solar and renewables, I would think it would be 
that laboratory. Do they?
    Mr. Reicher. Mr. Knollenberg, yes, the lab uses a fair 
amount of both solar derived and wind derived electricity to 
run the power plant, and it is, in fact, now buying green power 
off the grid produced by public service----
    Mr. Knollenberg. What kind of green power?
    Mr. Reicher. Wind produced.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Totally?
    Mr. Reicher. No, it is a percentage--I can get you those 
numbers. But the lab has an increasing amount of its power that 
is, in fact, renewables-based.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Wouldn't you think that if that lab were 
totally on solar power, or renewable power of some kind that 
that would be a--that would be a success story that you could 
replicate and sell--but you're saying to me that it is not the 
case?
    Mr. Reicher. No, it is, in fact, the case literally.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Totally?
    Mr. Reicher. Not totally, it is an increasing amount. And I 
can get you those percentages----
    Mr. Knollenberg. An increasing amount I understand, but 
that is not the answer I am looking for. Would you be so kind 
as to send me or supply me with the specifics of just how much, 
what percentage of power is derived--how it is derived and from 
what sources for that laboratory? I think it is not to damage 
the potential that you are striving for at all, but where are 
we? Let us get an assessment of where we are, and let us see if 
we can't move forward. But in a way, I think it is meaningful. 
I do come back again to the nuclear side that there should be--
and I know, Mr. Richardson, Secretary Richardson, you have 
advanced your support in the nuclear side. I think, however, it 
is being considered like a step child in terms of these 
percentages, because the percentages don't lie. They have 
increased substantially, and if you would do that for me, I 
would be most appreciative.
    Mr. Reicher. Absolutely, and I will give you those numbers 
and also show you how it is progressing in other parts of the 
Department and other agencies as well. It is on the rise. If I 
could, on CCTI, I just wanted to make the point that the 
largest percentage of the funding in CCTI is actually for the 
more efficient use of fossil and nuclear-derived electricity--
more efficient use in buildings, more efficient use in 
industry, more efficient use in cars. The next largest is, in 
fact, for clean power generation. Big increases in support for 
hydro. Big increases in support for technologies like wind, 
which are making real penetration into the market. Natural gas 
is very heavily supported in this budget for both.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                   solar renewables investment return

    Mr. Knollenberg. As well they should be. Now, when you go 
back to hydro, that I understand. But I begin to come back to 
the same feeling I had a moment ago, that you are still talking 
about a fraction of one percent?
    Mr. Reicher. On the natural gas----
    Mr. Knollenberg. That is coming--I am talking about coming 
from the solar and the renewables. And that is the focus--we 
are putting so much money into that arena, but what is the 
return on investment. And it has been a number of years that we 
have done that, so I think we have to start looking, do we 
really get our money's worth by continuing to fund a program 
that very honestly dwindles in terms of successes.
    Mr. Reicher. Well, when you look at the cost curves, when 
you see how this, how the price of electricity has come down so 
dramatically----
    Mr. Knollenberg. Come down, and who is going to buy it 
without a subsidy?
    Mr. Reicher. Well, it is, in fact, being bought in States 
across the country. As Mr. Latham said, the largest new wind 
installation in the world--indeed, the largest wind 
installation in the world is going in Iowa and major new 
installations in Minnesota, Colorado, and the Dakotas are 
making a move.
    Mr. Knollenberg. When they begin to push upward above that 
fraction of one percent in terms of being acceptable to the 
buying public, then you are going to begin to convince me. But 
until then, I think we have to really evaluate how we are 
spending this money. I have used my time here I think to its 
completeness. But I, Mr. Secretary, I do, again, welcome your 
visit here today, and I look forward to working with you. I 
truly do. Thank you. Good luck to you.
    Mr. Packard. Did you have any questions, Mr. Frelinghuysen?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You could stay right there, if that is 
all right. Does the National Energy Policy Act mandate that we 
have all these different energy projects--photovoltaic, solar 
thermal, biomass fuel, or is it?
    Mr. Reicher. No, it does not mandate those projects, you 
know, per se. It encourages the development. What it does----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. But the sum total of all of those in 
this account, and I am not here to bash any of those, what does 
it produce in terms of the overall energy picture for the 
United States?
    Mr. Reicher. Well, in terms of electricity, hydro, which, 
as I have said, we have asked for a major increase in hydro--it 
is on the order of about 10 percent. Natural gas.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. No--well, the hydro account increased 
279 percent. But what does hydro contribute to national energy?
    Mr. Reicher. About 10 percent of U.S. electricity. And 
natural gas is coming on very strong. And, as I have said, we 
have major, major commitments to natural gas-fired production--
--
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is interesting that nuclear energy, 
and I am not here to promote nuclear, represents just under 20 
percent, is that right, of the nation's electricity?
    Mr. Reicher. Right, and we have made a----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. And this subcommittee last year provided 
$19 million for nuclear energy research, and on the other hand 
we provided $54 million for photovoltaic research. I mean, to 
most of us, as lay people, that seems to be rather bizarre, a 
skewed figure.
    Mr. Reicher. Well, Mr. Frelinghuysen, I think it is an 
energy source that is coming on strong with these prices coming 
down----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I understand the expression coming on 
strong. I understand that what you say about real penetration. 
But in the overall scheme of things, it is still fairly 
minuscule, isn't it?
    Mr. Reicher. It is, indeed, small. As nuclear was 20 and 25 
years ago, and there is a growth curve, and we are expecting a 
growth curve--we already are seeing in wind. We are seeing it 
in biomass. We are seeing it in natural gas. And we think we 
are going to see it in solar as well. You have got to start 
somewhere, and the key to starting is bringing the prices down 
to a point where they are, indeed, competitive. And they are 
today competitive in the United States in certain areas, in 
remote areas, where there isn't easy access to the grid, they 
are, indeed, very competitive all across the globe.

                  solar energy competition for grants

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Relative to the issue of competition for 
grants, I know that there were some problems in the past--sort 
of non-competitive awards. There have been some improvements in 
that area. Would you very briefly comment as to where we stand 
on that? I think that is a very positive development. You ought 
to take some credit for it.
    Mr. Reicher. Well, I appreciate it. I won't bore you with 
the numbers, but the numbers have come up substantially in 
terms of the dollars that have been competed in both the energy 
and water account and in the interior account within our 
office. Not only the total dollar amount, but the number of 
people competing for these dollars has gone up dramatically, 
and the diversity of the types. You heard about Columbia 
University today. We had an application from them for money. We 
got it, and they turned out to be a very excellent applicant. 
And we are going to do some very significant work with them.

               performance based contracts energy audits

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Competition is important, but I do think 
the points that Congressman Knollenberg made, I would certainly 
echo some of them. Thank you very much. To the Secretary, Mr. 
Secretary, I read with interest your announcement that the 
Department has entered into a performance-based contracts with 
industry to reduce energy costs within government. This was in, 
I guess, yesterday's Washington Post. Could you tell the 
committee, which program at DOE is providing resources for this 
endeavor?
    Mr. Richardson. Mr. Reicher has all----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Back again?
    Mr. Richardson. Has all the money in our Department.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. And at the same time--is this the same 
type of initiative I read about in the Wall Street Journal 
about your Department selecting firms for energy projects at 
military bases?
    Mr. Reicher. Yes. This is an approach, it is very, very 
interesting, and I think it holds great, great promise. This is 
basically energy service companies going into Federal 
installations, doing energy audits, and using their own 
dollars, their private sector dollars, investing in retrofits 
to those facilities--heating, insulation, lighting--and then 
sharing in the savings to pay themselves back. And we basically 
put in place now, over $5 billion in contracting authority, the 
ability of the Federal Government to sign up to these private 
sector investments, to make the retrofits and share in the 
savings. And there is literally--we think on the order of a 
billion and a half dollars a year out of the Federal 
Government's $8 billion energy bill that can be saved. Again, 
not using taxpayer dollars, but using private sector dollars to 
invest in the retrofits and share in the savings. And we are 
really very, very bullish about this.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are managing these programs?
    Mr. Reicher. Correct.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. The one that was announced the day 
before yesterday on Tuesday as well as the one for the military 
bases?
    Mr. Reicher. Correct.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. One might ask, why shouldn't each of the 
government agencies itself be required to contract with 
industry? Or they just don't have the--or are you such a good 
manager that you have decided, somebody decided that the DOE 
ought to be doing it?
    Mr. Reicher. What we have done----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not against it. I just wondered 
what the rationale was?
    Mr. Reicher. It is a matter of, I think, of efficiency. 
What we have done is put in the basic contracts. We have made 
it very simple. If you run a post office in Iowa, and you want 
to make changes to reduce your energy use, we made it----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You could start with one in Morristown. 
I just moved my office out of there. The average temperature.
    Mr. Reicher. I should have picked New Jersey. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. The average temperature in my post 
office is 75 degrees year round. They have to have the air 
conditioning on in the winter because it was so hot.
    Mr. Reicher. That is a great example.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. And I have to say for the record that 
one of the reasons I moved out of there is it was so 
demoralizing that half the employees were asleep at the back 
table when I came in from doing whatever I did around the 
district because the post office was so hot.
    Mr. Reicher. To very quickly answer, responding to that 
specifically, that building manager, in the old days, would 
have to go out----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. There is no building manager for the 
U.S. Postal Service. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Reicher. Congressman, you, in the old days, would have 
to call an energy service company. Engage in a two-or three-
year process of entering into a contract. Maybe you would 
succeed. Maybe you wouldn't. We have now got that down to a 
point where we have standing contracts under which any Federal 
agency can go in a matter of three to six months, enter into a 
simple arrangement with one of these pre-selected companies. 
The beauty of this is we pre-select it on a competitive basis. 
These companies in six regions of the United States, and we 
have cut it to a three-to six-month process for sitting down, 
getting the audit done, getting the investment, and improving 
the energy use.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I think what you are doing is 
commendable, and my time is almost up. What are the costs to 
your Department to manage this program, or are they somewhat 
reduced by your partnerships and relationships with the private 
sector?
    Mr. Reicher. Very much reduced. It used to be that the 
Congress was appropriating dollars, large dollars, to make 
energy retrofits to Federal buildings. That is getting close to 
zero now, and what we have replaced it with are these private 
sector dollars. The cost to us is in managing these large 
contracts, and the overall budget for the office. It is called 
the Office of Federal Energy Management Programs and is between 
$20 million and $30 million a year, bringing in over the next 
several years literally billions in investment, so it is a 
wonderful return on investment.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay, we don't hear that often around 
here, so thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          cox committee report

    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think we are 
about to wrap up, so we won't be long, Mr. Secretary. The 
Select Committee on National Security and Military and 
Commercial Concerns with the Republic of China, the People's 
Republic of China, headed up by Chris Cox, has not released 
their report yet, but press reports have indicated that there 
are some real concerns about security at our national labs, 
particularly those that are producing nuclear weapons, do you 
have any comments on that at this point?
    Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, when I came into the 
Department, I recognized that this was one of our biggest 
problems, and we have moved aggressively to try to correct that 
problem. The Cox report, which is still classified, indicates 
that basically in the 1980s there was some compromising of our 
national secrets, primarily to China. And what we are doing now 
is assessing the damage of these disclosures.
    Now, we have taken some very aggressive steps in the 
Department of Energy to correct this problem. Number one, I 
have brought in an FBI counter-intelligence expert to run this 
program. We now have counter-intelligence people at each of the 
labs that we didn't have before, reporting directly to the lab 
director. We have basically done background checks on all 
visitors from sensitive countries. We have tightened our 
visitor procedures across the board. Now the lab director bears 
responsibility on who comes into the lab. There are accompanied 
people that go in with some of these individuals from sensitive 
countries. We have doubled the counter-intelligence budget, 
doubled the request, and we hope this committee is generous 
when it comes to this, although I think this is in the National 
Security component.
    I have also instituted some very tough procedures involving 
polygraphs with members of my lab teams. For those that are 
involved in some very sensitive activities, relating to these 
programs.
    So I believe we have responded, some say excessively, I 
think the problem is under control, but we suspect that over 
the years the Department was not as strong in security as it 
should have been.
    Mr. Packard. When the report is released and available in 
full, both this committee and I am sure you and your Department 
will address those concerns very specifically.
    Mr. Richardson. Yes.

                   management reform and improvements

    Mr. Packard. We appreciate that. You have indicated that 
one of your top priorities is management reform and 
improvements, and in your testimony you indicated that you have 
got different boards and reports, the Galvin report and others, 
that are being used as informational tools; and that you will 
release this to the Congress before the end of the fiscal year. 
I would really appreciate if we get it as soon as you can make 
it available to us so that we can see what you are doing.
    I have no further questions. It has been a very good 
hearing. You have been an excellent witness. You are very good, 
and I want to tell you that we have appreciated you being here. 
I want to thank the staff for helping us prepare for this our 
first hearing. It has gone I think very well. I appreciate the 
support and the participation of the members. And thank you 
very, very much.
    The hearing is adjourned.
    [The questions and answers for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                          Thursday, March 11, 1999.

              ENERGY RESOURCES AND SCIENCE BUDGET OVERVIEW

                               WITNESSES

DAN REICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 
    RENEWABLE ENERGY
WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND 
    TECHNOLOGY
DR. MARTHA KREBS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
    Mr. Packard. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to 
welcome you to this hearing this morning. As we announced last 
time, we intend to start our hearings on time; and I appreciate 
my Democratic colleagues being here. I have been told there are 
several hearings being held today and so some are divided 
between committees.
    This important agency hearing is regarding three major 
areas: the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; and the 
Office of Science. We have the Directors of each of these 
areas, the Assistant Secretaries and Directors, and we are 
grateful to have the witnesses here. I have had the privilege 
of meeting with them individually, in most instances; and I 
appreciated that opportunity.
    So we are going to--unless you have an opening statement, 
Mr. Visclosky, I think we will proceed.
    I might just mention that we are anticipating a series of 
six votes around 10:30, and so I would kind of like to have the 
witnesses complete their statements by then. And then if we are 
interrupted in the question and answer, that is not a problem. 
That means that I would like you to summarize your statements.
    I think most of the members of the committee have your 
statements. I have read them. It was not an easy night last 
night. I haven't read such technical information since I was in 
dental school. But I appreciated your statements. As I said, I 
read them throughout and made several notes; and we will have 
several questions.
    I might also mention that there will be many, many 
questions that will be submitted for the record. We will not 
ask them all, of course. We will ask you or your staff to help 
you in submitting answers to questions for the record.
    With that, I am going to ask if Mr. Magwood will begin; and 
then we will hear from Dr. Krebs and Mr. Reicher.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Magwood, welcome and thank you for being 
here.

                     Oral Statement of Mr. Magwood

    Mr. Magwood. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Visclosky and members of 
the subcommittee, I am Bill Magwood, Director of the 
Department's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. 
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss our fiscal 
year 2000 budget request. I have submitted a written statement 
for the record, but I have a few summary points I would like to 
make today.
    Over the last year, my office has worked very hard to focus 
and prioritize our programmatic activities along two primary 
goals: first, to reassert U.S. leadership in nuclear 
technology; and second, to conduct research and other 
activities that we believe are required to prepare for the next 
American century. I believe we have made considerable progress 
toward both goals.

                     nuclear energy accomplishments

    First, I would like to highlight a few points. I think it 
is important to reflect on some of our past accomplishments to 
understand how the Federal nuclear R&D program can best serve 
the American people in the future. The Department has a rich 
and successful history in the development of nuclear 
technology, dating back to the Atoms for Peace Program. Our 
accomplishments have benefited the Nation in many ways.
    As we all know, nuclear power technology itself was born in 
Federal research programs. But fewer people know that our 
programs also gave birth to nuclear medicine, which both saves 
lives and reduces health care costs. Further, as shown on this 
first chart, even after nuclear power was launched as a 
commercial business, our past work resulted in improvements 
that save American taxpayers millions of dollars every year.
    We are also proud of our work on the advanced light water 
reactor program. Working with industry, we helped make a new 
generation of safe and cost-effective nuclear power plants 
available to utilities in the United States and around the 
world.
    Today, three U.S. companies have brought three advanced 
technology nuclear power plants to the market. Further, any 
doubts that anyone may have harbored about whether these 
technologies would perform as advertised, need only go to 
Japan, or look at my next chart, to see the first two advanced 
BWRs in operation at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power 
Station. This seven-unit facility is, I believe, the largest 
power station on the planet; and it supplies about 23 percent 
of Tokyo's electric capacity. These advanced plants can now be 
routinely built in Japan in less than 4 years. A similar, but 
U.S. standard plant will be built in Taiwan. Many U.S. jobs 
will be generated by these activities and by other advanced 
nuclear power projects in Korea and quite likely other nations 
in coming years.
    These examples demonstrate how our past accomplishments 
have enabled the United States to maintain its leadership role 
in nuclear technology. However, the outlook for the future is 
uncertain. As you see in the next chart, the U.S. has 
dramatically decreased its funding for nuclear R&D over the 
last 20 years. In fact, in an event that reverberated 
throughout the international community, our R&D budget reached 
essentially zero in fiscal year 1998.
    The next chart shows that we have been out of step and 
outpaced by many of our economic competitors. The blame for 
this, I believe, rests with us. We did not change with the 
times nor did we plan sufficiently for the future.
    I believe that we are now on a positive track. I think we 
know what is needed and what our role should be in the future. 
But while research dollars are not everything--we have, for 
example, been able to demonstrate our leadership by engaging 
the U.S. nuclear community and the international community in 
various important discussions--such funding is essential in 
showing that we are serious and credible participants in the 
international exploration of nuclear technologies.
    We were, therefore, very pleased that Congress approved our 
proposed Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for fiscal year 
1999. Universities, industry, laboratories and the 
international research community have shown great interest and 
excitement in the NERI program. We have received over $100 
million worth of research proposals for NERI's first year. 
Further, research organizations all over the world are anxious 
to re-establish cooperation with the United States through the 
NERI program. For the coming fiscal year, we are requesting a 
modest increase for NERI from $19 million in fiscal year 1999 
to $25 million in fiscal year 2000.
    We are also proposing two other new, modest programs. One, 
the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, is needed to apply 
the Department's unique expertise in isotopes to fight against 
cancer, arthritis and many other illnesses. The other is the 
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program.
    The NEPO program is designed to conduct research into 
technologies that will be needed to optimize the efficiency and 
safety of today's nuclear power plants as they continue 
operating for the long term. NEPO can help assure that 
operating nuclear plants can continue to serve our interests in 
reducing harmful air emissions.
    As you can see on the next chart, efficiency enhancements 
to nuclear power plants over the 7 years leading to the year 
2000 comprise the largest contribution to utility plants' 
CO2 emission reductions.
    The next chart demonstrates that the operation of nuclear 
power was essential to states striving to meet Clean Air Act 
requirements. Increased generation of nuclear plants in these 
states enabled them to meet 37 percent of the emission 
reduction targets required by the Clean Air Act. Operation of 
nuclear plants can continue to provide these benefits into the 
middle of the next century.
    Finally, I note that we are relying, more than at any time 
in our history, on independent, external advice. The best 
example of this, was in October, 1998, Secretary Richardson 
established the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, or 
NERAC, to help us plan for the future.
    As you can see on this last chart, there are 28 
independent, prominent individuals on NERAC, including experts 
in fields such as nuclear technology, medicine, education, 
policy, economics and nonproliferation. NERAC is chaired by Dr. 
James Duderstadt, a former president of the University of 
Michigan.
    This group is working with us to develop a nuclear energy 
long-term R&D plan, a road map of the Nation's nuclear science 
and technology infrastructure, and a long-term isotope research 
and production plan. In addition, NERAC has formed a special 
subcommittee to analyze the long-term technology requirements 
of existing nuclear power plants and to guide, if approved by 
Congress, the NEPO program.
    In closing, nuclear power and nuclear technology benefit 
Americans in many ways. All the members of this subcommittee 
come from states that depend on nuclear power plants for 
electricity. Nuclear medicine is a part of everyday life, with 
more than 36,000 imaging procedures performed in U.S. hospitals 
daily. We believe that nuclear energy can continue to benefit 
the American people in the future and that with your help, 
support and counsel, the Department will have a role in 
pointing the way.
    I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Magwood.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Packard. Dr. Krebs comes to this committee with a great 
deal of experience. She is Director of the Office of Science 
and has served there for several years. We are very grateful to 
have you and welcome you to the committee.

                   Oral Statement of Dr. Martha Krebs

    Ms. Krebs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Visclosky, members of the subcommittee, I 
am delighted to be here today to describe the fiscal year 2000 
budget for the Department of Energy Science programs. As a 
matter of perspective, it is important to keep in mind that the 
whole Department of Energy in terms of its investments in basic 
and applied research ranks second only to the Department of 
Defense in terms of the Federal investment in research in this 
country. And, within that, the Office of Science in terms of 
its investment in basic research with the National Science 
Foundation; in particular, we are a primary funder of physical 
science in this country by comparison to other agencies.
    But more importantly, from my perspective, we are an 
integral part of the Department of Energy, both carrying out 
its science and technology commitments in terms of 
understanding the fundamental building blocks of the physical 
and living world that we are part of but, also in terms of 
meeting the science and technology underpinnings for the energy 
and the environmental missions of DOE as well as providing what 
we like to think of as extraordinary tools for extraordinary 
science in terms of the unique accelerators and reactors that 
we support at our national laboratories for research. And each 
year we get results.

                office of science developmental results

    Let me tell you about some of the most recent results. For 
example, we have new findings in corrosion resistance that will 
enable better protective coatings for high-temperature, high-
wear environments in furnaces, turbines and engines.
    We are exploring the new world of nanostructures, and we 
have created new materials that have 50 to 100 times more 
conducting power than copper. The day will come when we can 
show what kind of devices can use these new materials to 
conduct electricity.
    We have been able to seek the genome of something called 
deinococcus radiodurans which we like to call ``Conan the 
Bacteria''. It is a thousand times more resistant to radiation 
than human beings and we are now systematically studying its 
properties because we believe it can have some long-term value 
in bioremediation of severely contaminated sites such as 
Hanford.
    We have also developed the use of positron emission 
tomography to explore the chemical pathways of addiction; and, 
most recently, our scientists at the Brookhaven National 
Laboratory have been able to identify a drug available in 
Europe that is essentially a blocker of cocaine and nicotine 
addiction.
    Science Magazine annually identifies a breakthrough of the 
year. Most recently, this year's breakthrough is something 
called the accelerating universe which was led by one of the 
teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, my old 
laboratory in California. That is basically the result of a 10-
year effort led now by a person who used to be a postdoc when I 
was at the laboratory and basically has found a countervailing 
force to gravity that may result in the universe expanding 
forever as opposed to having a big bust.

               Office of Science FY 2000 Funding Request

    Going to this year's budget, let me simply say that our 
total budget request of $2.835 billion is $138 million above 
1999; and if you take into account some one-time projects, our 
total investment for new activity in FY 2000 is $184 million.
    It is composed of three major elements: the increase in 
construction costs in FY 2000 for the Spallation Neutron Source 
to keep it on schedule, an increase of $70 million for a new 
initiative called the Scientific Simulation Initiative, and $10 
million for an initiative in science education that I will 
describe shortly.
    Despite these increases for major initiatives, difficult 
decisions were made within the base program that are defensible 
but not comfortable given the tight budget constraints that the 
Administration followed and that you are also facing. New 
projects and new scientific directions have to be followed. 
Science doesn't stand still, and it means that operation of 
existing facilities have to be balanced with these new 
initiatives and directions, as well as with the support for 
research and researchers that use the facilities.
    So the budget request has a number of important elements. 
Let me talk about a few of them as briefly as I can.

                       Spallation Neutron Source

    First, the Spallation Neutron Source, a $1.36 billion 
facility located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. 
Scheduled construction begins this year. This is scheduled for 
completion in December of 2005. It is a five-lab collaboration 
involving the Oak Ridge Lab, Argonne Lab in Illinois, the 
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California, Brookhaven in New 
York, and the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico.
    It has been a high priority for the scientific community 
since 1984. It was reconfirmed as the highest priority for the 
material science community in the recent 1999 study by the 
National Academy of Sciences, and it can have major impacts on 
the understanding and fabrication of new and unique materials 
that range from metals to ceramics to polymers to magnetic 
materials, and it also has an opportunity for changing the way 
we understand biological structures and their functional 
properties in living systems.
    We have recently had a biannual review that has been the 
subject of another review by the General Accounting Office that 
called into question and made some critical recommendations 
about project management. We have replaced the project director 
of this facility, and the project is undergoing a review that 
will be completed in early April that we will be ready to share 
with you shortly thereafter.
    The new leader of the project is a Dr. David Moncton from 
the Argonne National Laboratory who brought in the Advanced 
Photon Source, one of our big facilities on time and budget. 
And so I believe we have moved quickly to get this project on a 
path that will allow us to move forward and complete this 
project in a responsible way.

                    Scientific Simulation Initiative

    Let me move quickly to the Scientific Simulation 
Initiative. It is the Department's contribution to the 
President's Information Technology for the 21st Century 
Initiative. It is aimed at providing the science base that will 
build the computer and information technology for the second 
decade of the next century. NSF and DARPA have the primary 
responsibility for this long-term base development, but the 
Department of Energy and other mission agencies, NOAA, NASA, 
National Institutes of Health as part of this initiative are 
investing in the computers that are called terascale, or 
trillions of operations per second, and the software that will 
enable them to be used. We are investing in them for science in 
this initiative.
    We have a special role in the Department of Energy because 
the Defense Programs and the ASCI program are in the process of 
developing these terascale machines to enable the certification 
of the safety and security of the stockpile and comprehensive 
test ban regime, because they are developing those machines, we 
can now foresee that tens of these teraops will be available in 
the next decade for science, but we have to start now investing 
in that science, developing the algorithms and building the 
models that will match the capability of those machines.
    In DOE, we have chosen two primary applications to drive 
the development of the machines for science: the climate 
modeling global systems application and combustion.
    We chose those applications with three criteria in mind. We 
needed complex scientific problems for which an order of 
magnitude or several orders of magnitude increase in computing 
capability was going to transform our understanding of the 
problem. Going from, for example, just being able to say 
something about temperature change to what will happen in 
different regions of our country if the temperatures climb, if 
carbon dioxide continues to increase, and if it has an impact 
on climate.
    The second criteria is a scientific community that is 
comfortable and sophisticated about large-scale computing and 
putting their problems on big computers. And then some other 
sort of external factors that justify choosing these 
applications because they need prompt development and 
exploitation of the coming technology.
    Climate models, whatever your perspective may be on the 
impact of human actions on climate, we are engaged for the next 
decade or two in an international environment as to what the 
impacts might be and what or how we might mitigate or change 
our behavior. And the Department of Energy and the United 
States needs to be in that discussion in an informed and 
scientifically credible way, and that is what we are aimed at 
providing by putting our models on terascale computing soon.
    Similarly, combustion, we have emission targets that are 
coming at us in the next decade for transportation that right 
now we don't fully know how to predict the behavior of engines 
as we know them, and this will help us do a better job of that.
    In summary, for the Scientific Simulation Initiative, DOE 
has critical scientific problems. We are in the middle of the 
technology development, and we have an interagency 
collaboration that will help us work this problem.
    In terms of other things that are in the budget, we are 
trying to take care of the unique facilities that we have had 
responsibility for. We are going to start the operation of the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven, the B-Factory at 
Stanford, the Combustion Research Facility at the Sandia 
Laboratory in Livermore. We are doing upgrades of neutron 
sources at Los Alamos and the reactor at Oak Ridge, and we are 
making successful progress on the Large Hadron Collider 
collaboration. That is an international high energy physics 
collaboration with CERN.
    We are moving forward on the Next Generation Internet. I 
can talk further about that later.

                          Human Genome Program

    The human program problem is funded at $90 million. We are 
about to start the large scale sequencing operation. In fact, 
it has started. We are about to dedicate the sequencing 
facility Joint Genome Institute in California. We expect to be 
moving from 20 million base pair sequence in 1998 up to 50 
million in 2000. And in the science education programs, we have 
a $10 million increase to bring faculty, student teams and K 
through 12 teachers to our laboratories to expose them to our 
research programs.
    In terms of program direction, I simply want to say very 
briefly that the people of the Office of Science are some of 
the best that I have ever worked with. Program direction 
supports them to do the work that you pay us to do. We have 
done a lot of work at trying to make our programs more 
efficient. We have gotten some kudos for it, and I won't tell 
you any more about that.
    In closing, I would say that this is a good budget. It will 
enable exciting science. We believe that we are managing 
effectively in the face of uncertainty. There is room for 
improvement, and I look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Dr. Krebs.
    Just informational, when did you serve on the staff of the 
Science and Tech Committee?
    Dr. Krebs. I believe we overlapped. I was there from 1977 
to 1983. I think it was your first term.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Packard. We are delighted to have the Assistant 
Secretary of the Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Mr. 
Reicher has jurisdiction over all of the renewable programs in 
the Department of Energy. We are delighted to have you with us, 
and the time is yours.

                     Oral Statement of Dan Reicher

    Mr. Reicher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to testify on the energy 
and water development portion of the budget for the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. As you know, the other 
portion of our budget is funded by the Interior Subcommittee.
    Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago, renewable energy was generally 
produced at a very high cost and in a very inefficient manner. 
Advanced power delivery system components and high temperature 
superconductivity didn't even exist, and the alternative 
transportation fuel sector was very immature. We have come a 
long, long way, Mr. Chairman.
    The cost of electric power from wind turbines in 1980 
ranged from 30 to 40 cents a kilowatt hour, and it has dropped 
as a result of aggressive R&D to between 4 and 6 cents a 
kilowatt hour. At this price, wind power systems are entering 
the marketplace, expanding from early California sites to 
include states ranging from Vermont to Alaska and from 
Minnesota and Iowa to Texas. We are also working on the next 
generation of turbines, which should bring wind costs to as low 
as 2 and a half cents a kilowatt hour by 2002.
    As another example, Mr. Chairman, the first commercially 
available photovoltaic panels in the early 1980s produced power 
at a cost of $1 per kilowatt hour. By fiscal year 2000, these 
PV systems will be delivering electricity for as low as 12 to 
20 cents per kilowatt hour, and in the next decade it should 
drop to below a dime if we continue adequate support.
    We now have large manufacturing plants in states as diverse 
as Virginia, Maryland, California, Michigan, Delaware and 
Massachusetts. The solar industry is very much a growing part 
of the U.S. economy. However, while both domestic PV production 
and U.S. product sales are up, we risk losing our world market 
leadership, having dropped from 44 percent in 1996 to 40 
percent in 1997 to 35 percent in 1998. Our potential loss of 
this growing market is exacerbated by a Japanese PV budget 
which is three times what we spend in the United States.
    Production of ethanol is also on track for widespread 
vehicle use at very competitive prices. As you know, Mr. 
Chairman, the use of ethanol is a very effective means to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To compete with today's 
inexpensive gasoline, our biofuels program focuses on the 
development of facilities which make ethanol from agricultural 
and forest waste and from dedicated crops. Construction 
recently began in Louisiana of a first-of-a-kind production 
plant with 80 percent cost share that will produce ethanol from 
sugar cane waste. We are also supporting the development of 
plants in California and New York that will use rice straw and 
municipal solid waste to produce ethanol, again which can be 
used in automobiles.
    A final example of our technical progress involves 
superconductivity. Through our innovative industry laboratory 
R&D program, superconductivity has rapidly moved from discovery 
to utility scale prototypes that carry 100 times the current of 
conventional copper cables, and this has occurred in only 10 
years. I am pleased to note that the world's first 
superconducting power line will be installed in Detroit in the 
fall of the year 2000.
    While we are making tremendous strides in these 
technologies, we still have much work to do. The competitive 
revolution in power generation has led to drastic decreases in 
the price of electricity. Still renewable energy is already 
making market inroads in many states: the world's largest wind 
installation being developed in Iowa; major new commitments to 
solar energy in many states ranging from Massachusetts to 
Illinois to Arizona; biomass power plants in states such as New 
York, Ohio, Minnesota, Vermont and Indiana; and tens of 
thousands of new geothermal heat pumps in homes, businesses, 
Federal installations, and schools in States as diverse as 
Indiana, New Jersey, Kentucky, South Dakota, Oklahoma and 
Texas.
    We are also aggressively pursuing integration of fossil 
fuel with renewable energy technologies. Projects such as 
hybrid wind/natural gas and co-firing of biomass with coal 
demonstrate the opportunities that exist between renewables and 
fossil fuels.
    Our fiscal year 2000 budget request would help us 
accelerate the market's success of renewables and advanced 
power systems. Our request is $325 million, up $53 million or 
about 19 percent from this year's enacted level. I would note 
that this year's request is a small fraction of what Congress 
appropriated for renewables in the early 1980s.

                  solar and renewables budget overview

    Let me quickly give you some examples of major program 
activities in fiscal year 2000.
    The photovoltaic program will initiate development of new 
high-efficiency, multi-junction solar cells to capture and 
convert one-third of the sun's energy to electricity; and that 
would be up from 8 to 15 percent conversion today.
    The biopower program will accelerate development of 
advanced conversion systems such as co-firing biomass with 
coal.
    The biofuels program will continue its waste-to-ethanol and 
corn ethanol projects and advance its core conversion 
technology research with universities and national labs.
    The wind program will place added emphasis on field testing 
small wind turbine prototypes to verify performance for remote 
sites, cold weather and off-grid energy needs.
    And, as I mentioned earlier, we are working on the next 
generation of large turbines for major on-grid power 
production; and we will begin testing those as a major step 
towards producing power at 2 to 3 cents a kilowatt hour.
    The geothermal program will focus more resources on high-
priority research and technology development for electric power 
applications. The program will accelerate work to produce an 
advanced drilling system capable of economically accessing the 
vast geothermal resources below 10,000 feet.
    These initiatives will enable the program to achieve its 
goal of producing power at 3 cents a kilowatt hour.
    And, importantly, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in fiscal 
year 2000 we propose to more than double our hydropower budget 
request to help us maintain and enhance our Nation's existing 
hydroelectric generation which today provides 10 percent of 
U.S. electricity. With more than 200 hydro facilities up for 
relicensing in the next decade, early indicators suggest that 
environmental concerns may cause regulators to reduce 
generation capacities or relicense facilities unless fish 
mortality and water quality concerns are met. We are developing 
and completing testing of advanced environmentally friendly 
hydropower turbine prototypes that will improve water quality 
and reduce fish kills so we can retain our current hydropower 
capacity.
    In fiscal year 2000, our hydrogen request will continue a 
strong core R&D effort to meet the goals of reducing the cost 
of hydrogen production, increasing the energy density and 
efficiency of our storage systems and developing low-cost, 
reliable sensors to detect hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen has a 
phenomenal potential for clean power production and vehicle 
propulsion.

                        management improvements

    Mr. Chairman, when I became Assistant Secretary about 17 
months ago I realized that the office faced many management 
challenges, and I made a major commitment to fix them. The 
subcommittee also highlighted several issues. We have listened 
to you, to industry and our other partners, and we have 
delivered.
    This subcommittee said we were relying too heavily on 
noncompetitive mechanisms to disburse funds. We listened, and 
we delivered a dramatic reduction in our use of noncompetitive 
funding mechanisms. The Office of Power Technologies, which 
represents the bulk of the funding from this subcommittee, has 
increased its level of competition to 93 percent, including 
congressionally directed activities. Close to 100 activities 
previously funded by sole source contracts within the energy 
and water account in fiscal year 1998 will now be competitively 
awarded.
    In 1998, we competed the $1 billion management and 
operating contract for the National Renewable Energy Lab 
(NREL), the first time it was competed in 15 years.
    This subcommittee also said that our office's uncosted 
balances were too high. Again, we listened, and we delivered. 
Across all of our offices, we have reduced uncosted balances by 
more than 58 percent since the beginning of fiscal year 1996; 
and, within solar and renewables, we have reduced them by more 
than 62 percent since fiscal year 1996. By the end of this 
fiscal year, we will have reduced these balances by more than 
$175 million versus the beginning of fiscal year 1996. I am 
very proud of this progress.
    We realize that our work to improve is by no means 
complete, and so we have established a new management 
improvement team for working with the National Academy of 
Public Administration to improve our procurement. The National 
Academy of Sciences is reviewing our programs right now. And we 
are also trying to break down the stove pipes that have often 
separated our various offices, and I want to highlight one 
particular example, which is our bioenergy initiative which 
brings together our work in biopower, biofuels and bioproducts.
    So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee, we have accomplished a great deal over the last 
two decades. We have set some aggressive, but we believe 
achievable, goals for the next few years. We have requested a 
realistic budget, and we have improved our management, and we 
hope that we can earn your support.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Packard. We apologize for rushing you through, and we 
appreciate your efficiency.
    We have about four and a half minutes to vote. We have six 
votes in a row. We may not be back for half an hour to forty-
five minutes. Please enjoy yourselves until we come back.
    [Recess.]

                     budget priorities for fy 2000

    Mr. Packard. The rest of the members of the subcommittee 
will be returning shortly. We just completed our last vote, and 
we are told that we will have about an hour before the next 
vote, so maybe we can complete our work by then.
    We certainly need to complete it by 1:00 because we have a 
full committee markup at 1:00. We are sorry for the delay, and 
we are grateful for your patience.
    All three of you, I am sure, are aware that we are 
expecting a very tight budget this year. From all indications, 
we are going to be expected to live within the caps, and that 
is going to reduce our budget significantly from last year's 
dollar level, and it means that we are going to have to do a 
better job perhaps this year than ever before in developing our 
priorities. We may not have the funds to fund all that you 
would like and all that the administration would like or all 
that we would like to fund or at the levels that we would like 
to fund.
    If that is the case, what programs, and this is a general 
question for all three of you, what programs or projects would 
you feel, and maybe it might be better to answer this for the 
record and have you give some thought rather than have you off 
the top of your head identify those low on your priority list 
and those high on your priority list.
    Maybe you can simply comment, though, what areas you feel 
are crucial, that would be really hard hit if we had to reduce 
funding. Let's approach it from that aspect. Then, for the 
record, if you would maybe list those areas and projects, 
construction projects and activities, particularly those where 
you have called for increases over 5 percent, if you would 
provide a list of those and also those that you feel would--if 
necessary, could afford to be cut in your judgment.
    Maybe we can start with you, Mr. Magwood. What are your top 
priorities in your budget presentation?
    Mr. Magwood. Well, since you have given us the opportunity 
to think about this, I think I will not list anything. But I 
would indicate that, in my opinion, the pantry is empty in our 
office, and I don't know that there is a place that I can 
recommend significant cuts. As a matter of fact, as I think you 
know, there are several parts of our budget that even with the 
request, do not have the level of funding that we think is 
necessary.
    But I will give some thought to it and provide that 
information.
    Mr. Packard. That is fine.
    Dr. Krebs, do you have any comments?
    Dr. Krebs. I am in the same position as Mr. Magwood. We 
have some fairly significant increases, but they are very 
important items, with respect to the Spallation Neutron Source 
construction and the new initiative in simulation. But in order 
to accommodate those, we also took reductions that I think are 
not going to make everybody happy. And, as I said, they are 
defensible, but not comfortable. So I will take the advantage 
of response for the record.
    Mr. Packard. And I appreciate that.
    As you perhaps know, the Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated the administration's proposal, of which you are a 
part, is about $30 billion over the caps; and so we feel that 
if we are expected to live within the caps, we are not going to 
have the level of funding that you had in your budget request.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Reicher?
    Mr. Reicher. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the 
opportunity to get back to you on this in writing. We would 
spread the cost generally, rather than taking specific cuts in 
program areas, the appropriate balance that we might take on 
the R&D side versus cuts in some of more of the demonstration 
projects. So we will get back to you on that.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            employment level

    Mr. Packard. One area that you certainly will want to look 
at, I suspect, will be FTEs. Your employment levels, they 
obviously carry a significant portion of your budget, as most 
agencies do, and the Department has called for a lowering of 
FTEs, and yet the budget as it is presented calls for an 
increase in funding for FTEs. That would be an area that I 
would hope that you would look at as well. Any comment?
    Mr. Reicher. Just briefly. Overall, the Department has come 
down substantially in FTEs over the last few years. What 
Secretary Richardson has put forward is an initiative to, in 
key areas, build back some key Federal staff because we found 
that as we have lost large numbers of people, particularly in 
key technical areas; and in some cases where budgets have gone 
up, we have not had the people we need to supervise the work.
    My office is down somewhere between 25 and 30 percent in 
FTEs, and our budget has gone up somewhat. We are hoping to get 
support for some funding to allow some key hiring back in some 
special technical positions where we really need help.
    Dr. Krebs. I would like to make a comment as well.
    There are increases in my program direction budget 
proposed, but they reflect two things: not that we are 
expecting to have significant increases in FTEs, but, in fact, 
over the last few years we have come down from about 320 people 
at our headquarters staff to about 270. We have an issue where 
in prior years we were working off prior year balances in our 
program direction, and we can no longer do that and maintain 
our business.
    And we also, as a result of the Scientific Simulation 
Initiative, do not have on board the expertise in the 
particular areas that we need to develop in order to manage and 
move forward with this program. The increases that are proposed 
in our program direction are very carefully thought out and do 
not represent significant growth at all, and we have come down 
significantly in the last 5 years.
    [The information follows:]

                      Program Direction Increases

    The Office of Science increase in Program Direction funding 
for FY 2000 is mostly attributable to funding for several full-
time-equivalents (FTEs) above the FY 1999 level. Increased 
funding for FTEs includes five FTEs for the Scientific 
Simulation Initiative, and two FTEs for the Spallation Neutron 
Source Project Office at the Oak Ridge Operations Office.

    Mr. Magwood. May I just make a very, very brief comment? 
The Office of Nuclear Energy has downsized from about 260 
employees in 1993 down to less than 100 today, and there are 
some areas where I believe we currently don't have adequate 
technical coverage to manage some of the programs that you are 
well funding. So I believe we not only need to hold the line 
but we need to come up in a few areas. So I hope you take a 
careful look at our program direction request.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Visclosky.

         Environmental Safety Concerns at Argonne National Lab

    Mr. Visclosky. Dr. Krebs, if I could ask about the 
management of the various lab facilities and the external 
regulation of them by the DOE and if I could focus in on the 
issue of environmental safety, you have a lab at Argonne?
    Dr. Krebs. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. And you have an environmental safety staff 
at Argonne, right?
    Dr. Krebs. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. And the Department of Energy has a Chicago 
field office?
    Dr. Krebs. Correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. And they have supervisory function as far as 
Argonne?
    Dr. Krebs. They oversee the implementation of contracts. 
They have responsibilities as well if you are leading in this 
direction to assist with oversight, departmental oversight of 
the environmental health and safety activities at the lab.
    Mr. Visclosky. So you would have people in the Chicago 
office doing environmental safety for Argonne?
    Dr. Krebs. Oversight. Not actual implementation. They have 
different roles at the lab. The lab has people who actually 
assist the scientists in maintaining control of their waste 
management activities. They actually implement waste management 
activities, for example. They do not--whereas the Chicago 
office would exercise oversight to assure that they are paying 
attention to the agreed-upon rules.
    Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Then you would manage the 
environmental safety office and function out of DOE in 
Washington?
    Dr. Krebs. Correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. Would they oversee the Chicago office or 
Argonne directly?
    Dr. Krebs. There are--it is not my part of the Department, 
you know, and what they do is they establish policy for the 
general set of environmental health and safety activities for 
all of the sites in the Department and then there is a staff 
that does exercise what we call independent oversight.
    Mr. Visclosky. So they would bypass the Chicago office and 
deal directly with Argonne?
    Dr. Krebs. Correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. And the University of Chicago is also 
involved, right?
    Dr. Krebs. Correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. Would they have a staff dealing with 
environmental safety as well for Argonne?
    Dr. Krebs. They do a certain kind of oversight. I do not 
believe that they maintain a separate environment health and 
safety staff with a separate environment health and safety 
expertise.
    Mr. Visclosky. I realize that it is a technical question, 
and if you can provide an answer for the record with the 
University of Chicago and their relationship with Argonne as 
far as environmental safety.
    [The information follows:]

   Implementation and Oversight of Environment, Safety and Health at 
                      Argonne National Laboratory

    There is no redundancy or overlap in implementation and 
oversight of Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) at the 
Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL-E).
    The DOE Role: The Argonne Group (ARG) of the Chicago 
Operations Office (CH) provides day-to-day operational 
oversight of activities at ANL-E. ARG, therefore, is the CH 
line manager for ES&H oversight at ANL-E. There are several DOE 
Headquarters offices (e.g., SC, EM) that fund work at ANL-E. 
These program offices facilitate resolution of ES&H issues that 
require HQ involvement and maintain operational awareness of 
ES&H activities at ANL-E, but do not perform day-to-day 
oversight of the laboratory. The Office of Environment, Safety 
and Health (EH) provides independent oversight of ES&H 
activities at ANL-E and carries out the Department's function 
under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 for enforcement 
of potential nuclear and radiological safety violations. EH 
does not maintain day-to-day surveillance of ANL-E.
    The Contractor Role: ANL provides day-to-day implementation 
of ES&H activities at ANL-E. The University of Chicago operates 
ANL-E under contract with DOE. The University's Board of 
Trustees has established a Board of Governors (BOG) at ANL. The 
BOG has a Safety and Environment Committee that reviews the 
Laboratory activities in worker and public safety of nuclear 
operations and the protection of the environment, but does not 
provide day-to-day implementation or oversight of activities at 
ANL-E.

    Mr. Visclosky. Are you satisfied that there is no overlap 
or looseness here that we could tighten up for you?
    Dr. Krebs. There is always a struggle, I think, to assure 
ourselves that the activities at these laboratories are safe 
for workers and for the public and for the environment.
    The Department made a commitment, in fact, Secretary 
O'Leary made a commitment to work to reduce unnecessary 
requirements in oversight with respect to a lot of different 
activity at headquarters and in the field so we could reduce 
unnecessary expenditures. We have made a great deal of progress 
on that, and I think it requires eternal vigilance.
    Mr. Visclosky. And I don't mean to be argumentative, but I 
think that it requires more than vigilance. We had Secretary 
Pena and now we have Secretary Richardson and that is two 
secretaries removed from when the commitment was made. You have 
four different offices exercising some role as far as 
environmental management here at just one lab.
    Dr. Krebs. I think the important thing that hasn't changed 
from one secretary to another is the commitment to the approach 
to environment, health, and safety, namely integrated Safety 
management. And it was developed under Secretary O'Leary and 
committed to by Secretary Pena and by Secretary Richardson, and 
my own sense is--and I have basically really supported the 
notion of Integrated Safety management, and it is within that 
framework if we have the correctly tailored approach that we 
can assure environmental health and safety at our laboratories 
and also maintain the quality of science.
    Mr. Visclosky. I think we all agree that we want to have an 
environmentally safe agency and laboratories. The question is, 
how can we provide that in the most efficient fashion possible? 
And I think it is also an example that is systemic of other 
overlapping and duplicative management functions. We have the 
labs saying it is the Department's fault and the Department 
comes in and says, well----
    Dr. Krebs. I don't think that you would necessarily have 
the Department saying that it is the laboratories fault. And it 
is hard for me to make an authoritative statement here, to be 
perfectly honest, because in general what I am paying attention 
to is the execution of my programs. I work very hard in my 
stewardship role with respect to the laboratories to put in 
place systems that will meet the tests that are established for 
them by the EH organization inside the Department of Energy as 
well as what is going on at the field offices.
    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Knollenberg called me, and he asked me if 
he could go quickly because he has something else, and I am 
going to ask Mr. Frelinghuysen, who normally would be next, if 
he would yield to him for questions.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I yield.

                       Nuclear Energy Projections

    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 
Frelinghuysen.
    Welcome, Mr. Magwood, Dr. Krebs and Mr. Reicher.
    To begin with--and this might be a question for you, Mr. 
Magwood, it relates to the nuclear industry. We have about 105 
nuclear plants that are operating. Is that right?
    Mr. Magwood. One hundred and four.
    Mr. Knollenberg. We are reducing by the minute. We better 
get a clock.
    The March 8 National Journal's daily energy briefing stated 
that DOE projects our global nuclear capacity to fall by 50 
percent in the next two decades. Is that an accurate 
description perhaps of DOE's plan?
    Mr. Magwood. I would not say that it is DOE's plan. There 
are projections which have been made by somebody in the Energy 
Information Administration that would indicate that there could 
be some decline in nuclear capacity over time, particularly in 
the United States. I think the current events, particularly the 
success of NRC's efforts in renewing licenses for nuclear power 
plants, may lead to some recalculation of those projections.
    Mr. Knollenberg. You have produced a chart that indicates 
the problem that could occur if relicensing isn't granted, and 
even if it is granted on a 75 percent basis what would happen, 
and it trails off to some very, very startling low figures. So 
without a change in nuclear policy in terms of relicensing, we 
could be in for a reduction in the amount of power generated by 
nuclear facilities; is that a fair statement?
    Mr. Magwood. If some of the early projections proved out, 
there would be a very significant decline in nuclear capacity. 
As I mentioned, I think that NRC has done a very good job, and 
we work closely with them in thinking about these issues, and 
they have done a very good job in proceeding with the renewal 
of licenses.
    Just as an example, Baltimore Gas and Electric had been 
projecting that it would take about 4 years to get a new 
license for its Calvert Cliffs plant, and I believe it will be 
completed in less than half that time. So there is actually a 
success story there.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I think we as a nation are going down the 
wrong path by not optimizing our existing nuclear plants and, 
in fact, should be working toward building more facilities if 
the marketplace so desires. And I especially encourage this 
direction, that is to say the marketplace direction, if they 
must exist under any kind of severe CO2 reductions 
which is part of the Kyoto treaty which is embraced by the 
Administration. And so, to meet the Kyoto reduction targets 
without a change in policy, we are not going to get there 
without nuclear energy. You know as well as I do that over 50 
percent of the electrical energy is produced by coal, some 14 
percent by natural gas, thereabouts, 18 percent by nuclear, and 
it was 20 I think at one time, and 10 percent by hydro.
    Dr. Krebs I know is very enthusiastic about fusion, but I 
don't know if that is going to get there as fast as we want. 
That is not going to be the silver bullet, is it?
    So here is what I am going to come down to. It appears with 
these things in mind, Mr. Reicher, you are going to have a lot 
of ground to make up. The Energy Information Administration 
states that to comply with the Kyoto proposal the U.S. must 
reduce coal-produced electricity by 77 percent. And, 
furthermore, Mr. Magwood may be pleased to know that the EIA 
will also increase the amount of electricity produced by 
nuclear energy, but I am not convinced that the Clinton 
administration has changed their policy on nuclear energy as a 
way to get us there, and then there is the matter of 
hydroelectric and what is going to happen to that over the next 
two decades.
    So what we are pointing up here is a scenario if we 
emphasize in terms of R&D, and you and I have talked about this 
a number of times, greater emphasis on solar and wind when they 
produce literally 2/10ths of 1 percent of the country's 
electricity, and with the expectation that we have to meet 
those target deadlines in 2008, assuming Kyoto becomes a 
reality.
    I guess I just wonder how we get there from here with that 
in mind. In a free and open marketplace, the ideas--I didn't 
mention biomass, by the way, which includes wood, does it not? 
That is about 2.72 percent, but we have to look at this from 
the standpoint of return on investment. There are good 
investments and bad investments, but how are we going to get 
there, I don't know. I see it as a very, very difficult 
situation.
    Before I come to you on this question, Mr. Magwood, how 
much would it cost to build a new nuclear plant, and how much 
of a megawatt facility would that be?
    Mr. Magwood. I think the best estimates that we have, as 
indicated earlier that the Japanese have built plants with the 
type of technology that we are thinking about, a large nuclear 
power plant of about 1,300 to 1,400 megawatts probably would 
cost on the order of $2.2 billion, which by the way we think is 
still too high. We are thinking more work needs to be done in 
that area.

                      wind farm construction costs

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me ask Mr. Reicher, how much would it 
cost to build a new wind farm, using the same megawatt capacity 
as a nuclear power plant which Mr. Magwood just described?
    Mr. Reicher. A wind farm can vary in size from a couple of 
megawatts to hundreds of megawatts. What I can tell you that 
you can today produce electricity from a wind turbine at about 
4 to 6 cents a kilowatt hour.
    Mr. Knollenberg. But you can't give me the information on 
what it would cost?
    Mr. Reicher. The turbines vary in size so greatly from a 
very tiny turbine that you could power a house with to one that 
you could power a very large community with.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I have been told that it would cost over 
$3 billion.
    Mr. Reicher. What size would that be? How many megawatts?
    Mr. Knollenberg. I don't know.
    Mr. Reicher. I can get you the per megawatt cost, and I am 
sure one of my colleagues here has that.
    But what is important to note is that we can produce wind 
energy, wind-generated electricity at quite a competitive rate 
today, and that is why we are seeing major growth in that 
industry.
    Mr. Knollenberg. How long would that facility last?
    Mr. Reicher. It is $1 billion for a thousand megawatts. So 
that is a lower figure than we have heard.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Where did that figure come from?
    Mr. Reicher. From one of my colleagues in the wind office.
    Mr. Knollenberg. For the record, can we have the 
gentleman's name?
    Mr. Reicher. Dan Adamson, and he is the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Power Technologies.
    Mr. Knollenberg. How long would such a facility last once 
you got it built?
    Mr. Reicher. These turbines operate for many, many years 
and with regular upkeep----
    Mr. Knollenberg. Because we don't know how long they would 
last because we don't have experience.
    Mr. Reicher. We have experience from 1980, and many of the 
turbines are doing quite well. Some are in the 20 to 30 year 
range.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Some work better in gusty wind conditions 
and some don't?
    Mr. Reicher. Yes.
    Mr. Knollenberg. The efficiency of the plant would be 
better in gusty wind situations?
    Mr. Reicher. Higher sustained winds, but one of the things 
that they are working on the in the R&D is to make them more 
efficient in a whole range of winds.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Well, my time has expired here. I do have 
some other questions relative to this whole matter.
    What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate your 
courtesy here, is that we really should look at all of these 
options and we should concentrate, I think, on which options 
work today. Cleaning up coal would be one thing. More nuclear 
would be another. If CO2 is something that we should 
reduce, let's get there as economically as we can, but let us 
not put too much emphasis on products that have not already 
proved themselves.
    I will submit additional questions regarding these issues.
    Mr. Packard. You can submit questions for the record.
    Mr. Packard. I would like to remind the members that we 
would like to hold to the 5-minute rule on the questions if we 
can.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Mr. Magwood, today's technology--I don't know 
what the barometer is, if it is oil, natural gas, coal. If you 
use oil prices as a barometer, what price for a barrel of oil--
would a new nuclear power plant, given today's technology, be 
competitive in a deregulated electricity market?
    Mr. Magwood. I can't give you a precise answer to that at 
this point, but for new nuclear power plants we don't believe 
that the current prices of oil or natural gas or coal, for that 
matter, would tend to make a utility choose a nuclear power 
plant on an economic basis at this stage.
    Clearly, more work needs to be done to reduce the 
construction time of nuclear power plants, to reduce the 
initial capital investment. Because if you look at the actual 
operation costs for existing nuclear power plants, they are 
extremely competitive; and utilities are now, as you have 
probably seen in the press, buying used nuclear plants and 
buying the most efficient capacity on the grid right now. Some 
nuclear plants produce power at around 1 cent per kilowatt 
hour, which is very good. But to build a new plant, would be a 
big investment; and unless the industry is successful in 
dramatically reducing the construction time and construction 
costs of plants, I don't believe that they will be competitive.
    Mr. Edwards. Is there any ballpark figure that you can 
guess?
    Mr. Magwood. I would like to try to get you that 
information for the record.
    Mr. Edwards. Good.
    [The information follows:]

                       Nuclear Power Plant Costs

    Although nuclear is competitive with oil today and is 
expected to remain so, its real market competitors for new 
capacity are natural gas and coal. The competitive position of 
nuclear may improve if fossil generating capacity is required 
to internalize all its costs as nuclear is required to do; cost 
of nuclear generation includes costs of waste disposal and 
decommissioning. Nuclear also does not produce any harmful air 
emissions. Compliance with the Clean Air Act is likely to add 
to the cost of producing electricity from fossil fuels but will 
not affect nuclear generation costs.
    Perhaps a more meaningful measure for assessing cost 
competitiveness of new Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWR) 
would be to compare the costs for nuclear energy with coal and 
natural gas rather than oil alone, because oil is used for only 
2 percent of the electricity produced in the United States. If 
one looks at the generation costs excluding capital costs 
(operating and maintenance plus fuel costs) for each of these 
fuel sources, we find that nuclear (1.91 cents per kilowatt-
hour [kwh] in 1996) is comparable to coal (1.83 cents per kwh). 
Natural gas costs an average of 3.38 cents per kwh and oil is 
4.14 cents per kwh. Including capital costs makes nuclear 
energy more expensive than coal or gas electric generation. A 
new 1350 MWe advanced nuclear power plant will cost $2.2 
billion to $2.5 billion to build. A comparable new gas-fired 
advanced combined cycle plant would cost about one-fourth as 
much. Most new electrical generation plants being built today 
in the U.S. are gas-fired. For nuclear to become competitive 
with natural gas and coal, prices for these fuels would have to 
increase by 28% and 71% respectively. In other words, with all 
other things remaining unchanged new nuclear power plants 
become competitive if the price of gas increases above $3.43 
per thousand per thousand cubic feet (compared to $2.69 today) 
or if the price of coal increases above $44.74 per short ton 
(compared to the current price of $26.16).
    Nuclear can also become competitive if its capital costs 
can be reduced. Reduction in capital costs can be achieved 
through the application of advanced technologies through all 
phases of design, licensing, fabrication, construction and 
operation. The activities proposed in our Nuclear Energy 
Research Initiative and Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization 
programs would make the option of nuclear energy more 
competitive in the future.
    References: 1. Energy Information Administration, Annual 
Energy Outlook 99; 2. Energy Information Administration, Annual 
Energy Review 1997; and 3. Nuclear Energy Institute, Fact Sheet 
on U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Performance, http://www.nei.org/
library/infobl.htm.

                     commitment to nuclear research

    Mr. Edwards. That is not an argument to not proceed with 
nuclear research. I think when you put in the cost of the 
Persian Gulf War and whatever the next war will be in the 
Middle East, the real price of a barrel of oil is much more 
expensive than it is on the open market.
    Dr. Krebs, where are we today in terms of our commitment to 
basic research that doesn't have a short-term consumer or 
political payoff compared to 20 years ago?
    Dr. Krebs. I can get you the numbers that show the 
commitment to 10 or 20 years ago. I don't have those in my 
head.
    [The information follows:]

                             BASIC RESEARCH
                       [B/A in millions--as spent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total        Total
                  Fiscal year                    Department   Office of
                                                 of Energy     Science
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 Actual...................................        441.3        441.3
1979 Actual...................................        464.9        464.0
1980 Actual...................................        522.5        519.9
1981 Actual...................................        597.0        587.5
1982 Actual...................................        775.5        766.7
1983 Actual...................................        762.5        729.3
1984 Actual...................................        830.8        791.0
1985 Actual...................................        938.4        890.6
1986 Actual...................................        961.0        899.2
1987 Actual...................................      1,059.3        987.5
1988 Actual...................................      1,171.2      1,093.3
1989 Actual...................................      1,382.7      1,293.9
1990 Actual...................................      1,502.5      1,401.5
1991 Actual...................................      1,684.5      1,570.6
1992 Actual...................................      1,712.6      1,645.2
1993 Actual...................................      1,732.7      1,596.1
1994 Actual...................................      1,619.5      1,551.7
1995 Actual...................................      1,622.3      1,556.7
1996 Actual...................................      1,918.3      1,803.7
1997 Actual...................................      2,045.2      1,946.4
1998 Actual...................................      2,097.5      2,005.2
1999 Estimate.................................      2,228.1      2,138.8
2000 Request..................................      2,283.5      2,195.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Edwards. Generally, are we going down or are we 
maintaining a commitment to basic research?
    Dr. Krebs. Within the Office of Science in the Department 
of Energy, if you look back 15 years or so, we have steadily 
increased the investment in basic science. There is an issue, 
however, because part of what we are good at in the Office of 
Science is building big machines and so we have built some big 
machines in High Energy and Nuclear Physics and also for 
accelerators for materials and biological research.
    And then the challenge is always to balance the operation 
of those facilities with the research that is carried out at 
those facilities. When you are in a situation, a job like mine 
or a job like yours, you will hear different people come to you 
and say, we need to operate our facilities at the right level, 
and we haven't kept up, or we need--we are not operating 
research at the right level, and we need to keep up. And so 
overall in this last 15 years, there has been at the bottom 
line some growth.
    But what has also become clear in the last 15 years is 
exactly the extent to which basic science makes a difference to 
our economy. And both the Congress and the Administration have 
made a commitment in the last few years to see increases in 
these programs, and certainly over the last 2 years the 
President has made major increases in the Office of Science, 8 
percent last year, 5 percent this year.

                       science education program

    Mr. Edwards. Good. Can I ask for a brief answer since I 
want to respect the time? Does your science education program 
do anything to encourage women and minorities to go into 
science and engineering? Are we in just as poor shape as when I 
was in the Texas legislature when 3 percent of engineering 
school students were women and minorities? Is that Department 
of Education or does the Federal Government not have any 
programs in that area?
    Dr. Krebs. The Federal Government has programs, but let 
me--I don't have all of the numbers in my head about all of the 
different disciplines. I can talk about women in physics 
because that is me.
    When I was in graduate school, it was 3 percent of the 
total were women. And now overall it is 9 percent, and if you 
look under 35 or so it is about 15 percent. So there has been 
improvement as the young people are coming along.
    To some extent what we have done in our education programs 
is to develop a broad solicitation process, make sure that 
women and minority institutions are well aware of the 
opportunities that we provide at our laboratories; and we have 
in fact, over the last few years, increased the number of 
women--provided increased opportunities for women and 
minorities for research experiences at our laboratories.
    [The information follows:]

                       Science Education Program

    Our core program the Office of Science--Energy Research 
Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship Program (ERULF), which 
started in the summer of 1998 provided research appointments 
for over 500 undergraduate students at eleven DOE-Science 
Laboratories. The demographic profile of the students who 
participated is as follows: 40 percent female, 12 percent 
African American, 8 percent Hispanic and 1 percent Native 
American. These results exceed the population base of these 
students who are enrolled in science and engineering at U.S. 
universities and colleges. The Office of Science--ERULF is a 
national program available and accessible to any student of 
good standing enrolled in a U.S. Higher Education Institution. 
The Office of Science, Science Education staff has made a 
concerted effort to communicate and distribute information 
regarding the ERULF program to all science and engineering 
faculty located at Historic Black Colleges and Universities, 
Hispanic Serving Institutions, Native American and Tribal 
Colleges and female faculty across the country including women 
colleges.

    Mr. Edwards. Thank you both for your answers, and I thank 
you for the work you do.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

              Tokamak Decontamination and decommissioning

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was a 
pleasure to yield to Mr. Knollenberg. My personal energy source 
this morning is Starbucks and Fig Newtons, so I will try to 
control myself.
    My questions are to Dr. Krebs, relative to fusion. Dr. 
Krebs, last week I think you are aware I discussed with 
Secretary Richardson the rationale behind including the 
decontamination and decommissioning funds for the Tokamak in 
the program account for fusion energy sciences. I think I have 
a better understanding of why these funds were put in this 
account. However, in an effort to clarify the Department's 
position, I wanted to ask you if the main reason for putting 
these funds in the program accounts centers around the fact 
that D&D of the Tokamak does not include the demolition of the 
existing building?
    Dr. Krebs. That is correct.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. If these D&D funds were included in the 
EM budget, how would the current decontamination and 
decommissioning plan change?
    Dr. Krebs. The general policy, and you know you can always 
develop exceptions, but the general policy for accepting D&D in 
the Environmental Management program is that they take charge 
of the facility and they do a complete from the ground up 
disassembly and decontamination of the facility and there is 
not much left for reuse. So that would mean that some of the 
equipment that currently is available on the TFTR which we 
would like to reuse for other facilities would not be 
available. It might mean that the NSTX that is in the current 
building that the TFTR is also in could not use some of the 
TFTR support systems. That would cause a problem if complete 
decontamination from the current policy perspective of the 
environmental management program was implemented.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So some of the Tokamak's components will 
or will not be used in other fusion machines and experiments?
    Dr. Krebs. The intention--since the D&D for TFTR is in the 
Office of Fusion Energy, we intend to decontaminate the 
facility in such a way that it would permit reuse of certain 
components and would permit reuse of the space at a later date.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. As you are aware, D&D of the Tokamak is 
a top priority of mine and also of my State. You have reviewed 
the plan?
    Dr. Krebs. Not in detail, sir.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. What about the whole issue about whether 
it can be accomplished in a 3-year time frame? In your 
testimony you make reference on page 27 to the fact that it is 
a 3 year effort.
    Dr. Krebs. That is correct. And we have a commitment within 
the administration to accommodate that cost profile.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. What would be the projected savings by 
undertaking this initiative in that----
    Dr. Krebs. I don't have that in my head. I will provide it 
for the record.
    [The information follows:]

                           TFTR Cost Savings

    By completing the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor 
Decontamination and Decommissioning in 3 years instead of 5 
years, the Department will save $13.2M.

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Also, as I discussed with the Secretary, 
has the inclusion of these D&D funds squeezed other elements of 
the fusion energy science program?
    Dr. Krebs. As you will recall, essentially the fusion 
energy budget is essentially flat between 1999 and 2000. The 
Committee gave direction in the 1999 budget to terminate the 
activities associated with the international Tokamak activity. 
We will have completed that, and in some respects you can view 
that funding as now being redirected within the program for the 
cleanup.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You could use additional funds, 
obviously.
    Dr. Krebs. Right.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. How would you use them if you could get 
them?
    Dr. Krebs. The fusion community and other outside 
organizations such as TCAS has recommended that the fusion 
program be funded at least at $250 million without regard to 
the TFTR D&D, and so there certainly is good research that 
could be supported with additional funds.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Changing----
    Mr. Packard. Would the gentleman yield on fusion?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
    Mr. Packard. Dr. Krebs, I have had a keen interest in 
fusion work for a great many years, and Princeton has been 
cooperative with much of our fusion work in San Diego so it has 
been of keen interest. We have noted that it has been a flat 
budget and again projected to be so this year.
    When the decommissioning is done at the Tokamak, is it 
intended then that those funds would be diverted back to 
research or is that going to be dropped from your budget 
request?
    Dr. Krebs. That is my hope, sir. I think it is also fair to 
say, another way, to say what has happened in fusion in the 
year 2000 is that it was fairly widely held knowledge that was 
published in trade press that the target going into the fiscal 
year 2000 budget construction was $190 million, and in a sense 
we were able to build that back to a flat budget. And my goal 
would be to maintain at least that, if not more, in the 
outyears.
    Mr. Packard. And as we close out ITER that is also planned 
or hoped to go back into the research program?
    Dr. Krebs. In the long run.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you for yielding.

                       spallation neutron source

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. It is great to share with the 
Chairman what Mr. Knollenberg doesn't feel quite is true, that 
this is a potential silver bullet.
    One last question. Can you tell me the status of the 
Spallation Neutron Source being constructed in Oak Ridge and 
has the Department spent the funds provided by our committee?
    Dr. Krebs. The Spallation Neutron Source is--as I indicated 
earlier, we had a review, which is our standard review on a 
biannual basis of a big construction project, and this was the 
first review that occurred after the initial funding was 
available from the committee, and they found, and it was not a 
surprise to us, that the management of the project was not 
quite at the stage that they would--they feel is optimal. We 
made managerial changes, and I believe that this will get the 
project on track.
    It is the case that right at this moment we are spending at 
about 60 percent of the rate that was originally projected. We 
are undertaking a review with the new technical project manager 
and the new project director, I need to be careful about the 
terminology here, but the new project director is on site doing 
the review.
    He will have a title 1 baseline done by July, as was 
requested by our review. We will not spend at the expected rate 
in the next few months, but it is the case and we will know 
better when we have the report from the new project director 
just what the rate will be, but we expect to see significant 
obligation of funds in the last part of this year and through 
2000. I am not prepared to say that there is a lot to take 
there.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Clyburn.
    Mr. Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                           fellowship program

    Let me begin by asking Mr. Magwood a question if I may. I 
would like to ask you about the fellowship program that you 
have. I want you to know that I support the program very much 
and know that it is a pretty low-budget activity and I want to 
know what the future holds for it?
    Mr. Magwood. I consider this to be one of the more 
important parts of the university program for which we did ask 
for a modest increase this year from $11 million in fiscal year 
1999 to $11.3 million. The fellowship program is a little bit 
lower than the previous year, but there were just a lot of 
priorities we had to deal with in that budget this year.
    I consider the fellowship and scholarship program to be one 
of the most important parts for two reasons:
    One, we have standing commitments with a large number of 
students who are attending nuclear engineering programs, 
graduate and undergraduate. There are some students in 
historically black colleges and universities who receive some 
funding from us, and I think it is critical that we maintain 
that support while those students are progressing.
    The reduction that we show this year reflects the fact that 
some of those students have graduated and moved on, and we 
simply did not add more students because of the budgetary 
pressure. But I think that is some of the most important money 
that we spend in the whole budget, and I would like to increase 
as much as we can.
    Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much. I do support that, and I 
know that you have met with my staff, and I want you to know 
that I support it.
    Dr. Krebs, I don't profess to be able to understand all 
that you testified to here today.
    Dr. Krebs. I don't either.
    Mr. Clyburn. Anytime I hear somebody has found a way to 
counteract gravity, I am ready to leave the room, but I want 
you to know that I understand the great contribution that all 
of your work means to western civilization. We wouldn't be 
where we are without your work, and I want you to know that I 
admire the work, but I want to say to you that I am 
particularly interested in your being very, very careful with 
these indirect costs. It is a problem for me. I know that my 
fellow colleagues, we sometimes sweat bullets when we see the 
headlines in newspapers about indirect costs. Although I do 
support what you do, I ask you that you be very, very careful 
with the indirect costs.

    experimental program to stimulate competitive research (epscor)

    Now, let me talk about something that I am particularly 
interested in and that is your program to stimulate competitive 
research. I am very interested in that. I think in South 
Carolina we have been very much involved in a lot of your work. 
My alma mater, South Carolina State University, is involved in 
it. Can you tell me what the future is for that program?
    Dr. Krebs. We have sustained that at a fairly steady level 
over these last 3 to 5 years at around $7 million.
    Certainly within the Administration and within the Office 
of Science we think that the EPSCOR program, as we call it, is 
really a very good way to build research capability and a 
research experience into universities that are in a sense pre-
competitive. What we want to do is the students who attend 
schools throughout the Nation need to have an environment in 
which they can be exposed to faculty pursuing research because 
that is what would lead them on to a career in research.
    To the extent that we can assist the States and these 
institutions in attracting high-quality research faculty and at 
the same time make that research experience available to their 
students which otherwise might not have happened, that really 
for me is the purpose of the EPSCOR program.
    We work with our colleagues in NASA and NSF, and NSF has a 
significantly larger program, to make the appropriate 
investments in areas of research that are relevant to the 
Department of Energy.
    Mr. Clyburn. So I can gather from your answer that you do 
envision that this program has a significant future?
    Dr. Krebs. You bet.

             renewable energy production incentive program

    Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Reicher, as you know, the Renewable Energy 
Production Incentive program was created to encourage public 
power to invest in renewables, and you may also be aware that 
public power has a very large presence in my home State of 
South Carolina, and I notice in your written testimony that you 
plan to revisit, I think is the word you use, the 62.5 percent 
reduction in the program in the year 2000. What do you mean by 
revisit?
    Mr. Reicher. Mr. Clyburn, there has been a great deal of 
concern expressed by people from the public power community to 
the proposed cut in the Renewable Energy Production Incentive 
line this year, and we are going back to see what we can do 
about that to support--potentially support greater funding for 
it.
    Mr. Clyburn. Increase the funding?
    Mr. Reicher. Yes.
    Mr. Clyburn. So revisit is to try to increase. There have 
been some revisits around here that----
    Mr. Reicher. That is a fair question. With an eye towards 
supporting in fiscal year 2000 an increase over what we have 
asked for.
    We are also supporting a little further down the road a 
rewriting of the overall approach to REPI, to make it much more 
useful to public power, to make it much more predictable so 
they know what money will come in the door to encourage the use 
of renewables in the United States. I think if we do both, do 
what we can in terms of this current proposal and improve the 
underlying program going down the road, I think we will be in 
much better shape.
    Mr. Clyburn. Thank you. I was hoping that would be your 
definition of revisit.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here today.

           high flux beam reactor at brookhaven national lab

    Dr. Krebs, I particularly appreciate your leadership and 
your help as head of the Office of Science in relation to the 
many problems that Brookhaven National Laboratory has endured. 
And, as you know, I have been especially critical of the 
environmental transgressions. But, having said that, I think 
that Brookhaven remains one of the Nation's preeminent research 
facilities. I am a thousand percent behind the laboratory and 
its wonderful multi-science disciplinary activities there, and 
I thank you for your leadership on this question.
    As you know, I have been especially concerned about the 
nuclear reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the so-
called High Flux Beam Reactor, and that reactor having been 
shut down almost 2 years ago, and it was expected to go back 
on-line or a decision was to be rendered, I guess, as of 
January, 1999, about the High Flux Beam Reactor going back on-
line. I stated my opposition to the restart.
    Having said that, I was wondering if you can share with us 
a little bit of the insight, the record of decision on why the 
future of the High Flux Beam Reactor had been delayed so long? 
I guess now it is projected that a decision will be made at the 
end of the year, December, 1999.
    And I would ask you also how does the delay affect the cost 
and the complexity of any attempt to restart? Would that be the 
decision of the Secretary later this year?
    And also let me ask, originally, as we noted, the decision 
was supposed to be in January of 1999 and now it has been put 
off to later this year, and I was wondering also what 
alternatives the Department might be considering if, in fact, 
because of this delay and the decision having been postponed, 
and I know there are people associated with the High Flux Beam 
Reactor working there, and I would like some of your insights 
in regard to those specific areas.
    Dr. Krebs. I will try to make this brief and provide you 
with any additional information for the record.
    The delay has basically occurred as we have put the 
development of the Environmental Impact Statement through the 
reviews inside the Department, and some natural delays occurred 
as a result of that.
    But, more recently, Secretary Richardson determined that he 
would extend the public review period that would be required 
and, as a result, we are delaying putting out the final 
Environmental Impact Statement until I think October/November 
of this year, which would then--that is the driver to delay the 
final record of decision until at the earliest December of 
1999.
    In terms of the cost--what this does is in any scenario 
once a decision--if a decision were to restart was made, it 
would take about 16 months to restart the reactor. The original 
schedule was that the reactor would be back on-line in 3 and a 
half years. If the record of decision is to restart in 
December, then it would be in the middle of 2001 before it 
would be back on-line. The longer you delay restarting, it does 
induce issues associated with training of staff and that sort 
of thing. These machines need to be exercised, and so there are 
some concerns the longer we delay.
    The alternatives, I think you are referring to what other 
things have happened, what has the neutron research community 
been doing in the meantime?
    Mr. Forbes. Right, because of the delay.
    Dr. Krebs. Some of them are using other facilities, other 
reactors at Oak Ridge Laboratory, overseas in France. They are 
also using some of our spallation sources at Los Alamos, and 
some are rethinking about the way of doing their research as 
the facility has--you know, has continued to be off-line.
    There is still a fairly strong feeling among some members 
of the community that this is a unique facility and should 
still operate. We don't have many reactor ports for neutron 
science in this country, and so they would like to see it, and 
they are waiting for it to come back.
    Mr. Forbes. I think DOE's own Basic Energy Science Advisory 
Committee had advised that restarting would not be practical or 
feasible from a technical and economic standpoint unless it 
operated at increased power, at 60 megawatts. I think they said 
in their report, ``It should restart at 30 megawatts and move 
immediately to 60 megawatts in a timely manner. All of the 
actions required for this move should be completed before 
start-up. If the start-up were to be at 30 megawatts with no 
clear plan to move to megawatts, it should not be done.''
    And, as you know, the community, and I would share this 
view, that moving from 30 to 60 megawatts is something that is 
opposed by many of the people on Long Island. I know that the 
scientific community would like that to happen.
    Even if the Administration decided to restart the High Flux 
Beam Reactor, how realistic is it to think that you could run 
the HFBR at 60 megawatts as recommended when the HFBR did not 
run at 60 megawatts for some 17 years? And I guess what would 
be necessary to make sure that that were happening if the 
Secretary were to decide to restart?
    Dr. Krebs. I will have to get back to you for the record on 
some of the specifics there. My understanding is that there are 
no technical issues with restarting up to 60 megawatts. And the 
desire of the Basic Energy Science Advisory Committee was to 
move to 60 megawatts because the intensity of the beam would be 
that much stronger and would allow them to do a different set 
of experiments which were highly desirable.
    So the details of what it would take to get to the point of 
being able to go to a 60 megawatt start-up is something that I 
am going to have to provide you for the record.
    [The information follows:]

       Record of Decision Delayed for the High Flux Beam Reactor

    During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping 
process a year ago, the community requested that the Department 
expand analysis of the reactor's potential environmental 
impacts. To ensure that a comprehensive review is conducted, 
the Department has taken additional time for analysis and 
evaluation. The scheduled activities have been delayed to 
address issues of importance to the environment of Long Island, 
and the health and safety of workers and the public. The Draft 
EIS is now scheduled for public comment in April 1999, and the 
Final EIS is expected to be published in November 1999. The 
change in schedule for the Draft EIS and Final EIS will delay 
the Record of Decision, which is scheduled to be issued no 
earlier than December 1999.
                                ------                                


                  Secretary's Decision to Restart HFBR

    HFBR was upgraded in 1982 with new heat exchangers to 
support an increase in operating power from 40 megawatts (MW) 
to 60 MW. The reactor operated satisfactorily at 60 MW until 
1989 when questions were raised about certain postulated 
accidents. Analysis done since then has resolved these 
questions. DOE would follow normal practice for restarting a 
reactor after a long shutdown, including operator training, an 
Operational Readiness Review and setting safety set-points, and 
updating administrative paperwork for 60 MW operation. No 
decision to restart at any power level has been made.

                    relativistic heavy ion collider

    Mr. Forbes. Is the RHIC, relativistic heavy ion collider, 
still on schedule to begin operations in August of this year, 
and has the Department of Energy fully funded its operations at 
BNL?
    Dr. Krebs. The RHIC is on schedule to start. I trip over 
the word ``fully.'' I think there will always be disagreements 
between what is fully and what is adequate under constrained 
circumstances, but I think we are providing a fairly 
significant increase for RHIC operations. It is going to be 
$106 million some in fiscal year 2000 with $12 million for 
research. We think that this meets, I believe, the 
recommendations of the advisory committee.

                  impact of bates laboratory decision

    Mr. Forbes. Just quickly, I know there had been reversal 
decisions as applied to Bates Laboratory at MIT. I am just 
wondering if the nuclear physics budget is impacted, because 
now there is an additional demand on that budget after the 
Department reversed itself on Bates?
    Dr. Krebs. The actual details of the budget amendment are 
not completed within the Administration, but it is not expected 
that it would affect nuclear physics except through an 
increase. We will take care of Bates by an increase to the 
nuclear physics budget.
    Mr. Forbes. Nor the RHIC project itself?
    Dr. Krebs. That is correct.
    Mr. Packard. I will yield to my colleague.

             solar and renewable investment accountability

    Mr. Visclosky. We have talked in the past about renewables 
and accountability, if you would. Would you want to address 
that issue as to how we on the committee can judge whether or 
not the investment is paying off if sharp decisions are being 
made to terminate some programs if they in fact are not going 
to lead anywhere?
    Mr. Reicher. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
    Let me say the following, just to put a couple of numbers 
on the table. Renewables today are about 2.2 percent of U.S. 
electricity, that is geothermal, biomass, solar, wind, those 
kinds of sources, about 2 percent.
    What we are very proud of are the cost curves. Back 20 
years ago people talked about where we needed to get over 20 
years in terms of bringing the prices of these various 
renewables down, and what I would like to submit for the record 
are these very impressive cost trends for wind, for geothermal, 
for wind, for biomass and photovoltaics; and we made a huge 
amount of technological progress; and we have seen some growth 
in the use of these renewables.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             solar and renewable investment accountability

    Mr. Reicher. The thing that I really want to stress and I 
have done some thinking about this since we met is that energy 
technologies take time and take investment, often Federal, to 
become a major contributor to our overall energy picture. I 
want to give you some perspective.
    Let's talk about hydro. We really got going with hydro in 
1920 with the Federal Power Commission and the Federal Power 
Act. It took us about 70 years, 1920 to about 1990, to get to 
74,000 megawatts or 10 percent of U.S. electricity today. We 
spent in as-spent dollars, not inflation adjusted. We spent on 
the order of $20 billion through the Power Marketing 
Administration territory and many billions more through TVA or 
well in excess of $20 billion to get us to 10 percent.
    The nuclear area we started in 1950, the Shipping Port 
Reactor in Pennsylvania, it took us 45 years to get to the 
110,000 megawatts or 18 percent of U.S. electricity that we 
have got today, and in excess of $20 billion, and those are 
inflation adjusted dollars, 1997 and 1998 dollars, in excess of 
$20 billion to get there.
    Let me just pick one technology that you have heard me talk 
about which is wind. We had virtually no wind capacity in this 
country, 10 megawatts in 1980. And we are now at 2,000 
megawatts in the United States, about, and we are about to hit 
10,000 megawatts worldwide. Just in 1 year, between 1997 and 
1998, we saw 2,000 megawatts added worldwide. The Europeans are 
on a trajectory to build 40,000 megawatts of new power. The 
average coal plant is 200 or 300 megawatts. So when you look at 
40,000 megawatts of new power that the Europeans are intending 
to put on-line, you understand that we are only 20 years into 
what in the case of hydro was a 70-year cycle, in the case of 
nuclear has been a 45-year cycle.
    Thus, the need for some continued Federal support. We are 
at 4 to 6 cents a kilowatt hour. With some Federal support we 
think that we can bring this down to 2 to 3 cents a kilowatt 
hour in the next 2 to 3 years. With that we will see the 
increasing growth take off even more in this country and indeed 
around the world.
    We think that it is very good for our economy. There are 
new wind plants, not just the turbine but wind manufacturing 
facilities, being built in this country. There are new jobs 
being created. It is a good response, a good way to reduce 
traditional air pollution and global warming gases.
    When all is said and done, we need to support coal, to 
improve the combustion of coal. We need to improve our work 
with natural gas. We need to continue to support nuclear. But 
what we have in wind and some of the other renewables are 
technologies that are taking off as we speak, where the real 
growth is from now going forward and not the last 20 years, 
which have been devoted to bringing them down to a price where 
the other technologies had to get in their growth curves over 
much longer periods of time.
    So that is my answer and that is why I think the requests 
we have made to support these technologies make a great deal of 
sense, because the next decade and two decades is when we are 
going to see real penetration by these technologies.
    Mr. Visclosky. I tend to land in Mr. Knollenberg's camp, 
although I have set aside all of my fusion questions because he 
has now left and there are only three of us here.
    I guess the problem in my mind and that all of us on the 
committee have to resolve is that I do appreciate what you have 
said and I do appreciate you coming back with the information 
as far as getting your costs down. Part of this, and it has 
been a positive development, contrary to what most of us would 
have anticipated in the early 1970s, the cost of energy has 
continued to decline and so the target that renewables have had 
to hit and other forms of energy have had to hit has been a 
moving target in a positive direction, what is good today may 
be bad tomorrow.
    On the other hand, we are short on cash and, from my own 
personal assumption, we are about $1.80 billion short on the 
subcommittee. The chairman may have a different perspective on 
that, but we have a very tight budget.
    Under renewables there are some significant increases as 
far as the request. Mr. Magwood has a request for a new 
program, and we turned you down last year on the optimization.
    You have facilities here that potentially today are 
producing energy at 1 cent, others that we would like to get 
down to 1 cent. Is that $5 billion better spent there or 
somewhere else? I do appreciate the point that you raise and I 
do have an open mind, but I think we have an obligation to 
strike a balance between the mature, efficient sources that we 
have today as well as continuing to make progress to get the 
prices down on renewables and to hold your feet to the fire. 
And if some of these are not going to pan out, we have to put 
some additional resources in the ones that are most promising. 
If you would want to make a final comment.
    Mr. Reicher. Well, I wanted to say, you talk about the cost 
of energy. What we see are many things that go into this 
calculation of the cost of energy, and what I think we are 
going to see over time is fossil fuels tend to go in cycles. 
They go down and up in price. I think with the increasing 
environmental imperatives that we are seeing, the regulation of 
air emissions and other kinds of environmental constraints, we 
are going to see increases in the price of fossil fuels. And it 
is in the renewables that we see the opportunity to put in 
place very clean power sources that are not depending upon the 
vagaries of fuel prices.
    I want to urge you to take a careful look at the fact that 
these are technologies that are increasing their role in the 
marketplace today and are at a point in time much earlier in 
their development as was hydros and renewables several decades 
ago. We are there with a fairly modest investment. We can push 
these to a point where they will be very good for the economy 
and the environment and make a major, major contribution going 
into the next century.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Frelinghuysen?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just a few comments. I thought that the 
institution TVA would never be mentioned in this committee 
again. I sort of wrote a note to the chairman here, if any 
rescissions are considered or any offsets to supplementals, and 
I guess the chair has been good enough to offer up a few, 
willingly or unwillingly. I hope that he takes a look at the 
amount that we continue as a subsidy for the TVA last year. If 
any of your lobbyists are here, I don't forgive myself for 
saying this and for our refinancing a third of a portion of 
their bonding capacity.
    Mr. Reicher, I don't want to pick up where Mr. Knollenberg 
left off, but I can't help doing a little bit of that. You 
referred in your remarks to environmentally friendly 
hydroelectric power. I assume when you are talking about 
environmentally friendly, you are talking more about to fish 
than to taxpayers and the history of subsidization?
    Mr. Reicher. Yes, to their impacts on fish and water 
quality generally.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. From time to time this committee takes a 
close look at these costs of subsidy, and certainly in some 
cases there may be some validity, and since we are joined by 
the good gentleman from Ohio, I will stay away from his area, 
but in the hydro area there has been a long history of 
subsidization.
    Relative to Japan, I know that sometimes people highlight 
Japan and you mentioned in your remarks Japan has three times 
the budget that we do I guess in the renewable area?
    Mr. Reicher. In the area of photovoltaics.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Generally speaking, I don't think that 
Japan has any oil, does it?
    Mr. Reicher. That is correct.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think we need to be aware that, while 
Japan may have some brainpower assets, they don't have a lot of 
natural resources, other than perhaps photovoltaic and perhaps 
wind.
    Mr. Reicher. We are importing an increasing amount of our 
oil as well. We are now in excess of 50 percent and headed onto 
60 and perhaps 70 percent over the next decade; and that is one 
of the primary reasons, from a national security standpoint, 
that support for technologies that can rely on----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I understand that we have a greater 
reliance, and certainly the prices have come down remarkably, 
but I think it is fairly well known that when wars are fought 
to protect that oil supply, these that you hold out as 
perhaps--those that we ought to emulate don't do a lot to 
contribute towards those military efforts. I like you and you 
are excited about the work that you do and I am not against 
solar and ethanol, but I do think that we need to take a look 
at how productive these investments are.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Forbes, please.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                   national synchrotron light source

    Dr. Krebs, the National Synchrotron Light Source at BNL is 
perhaps the most heavily used light source in the country. It 
is a valuable resource for industry as well as academia, and I 
understand that the Energy Department is collaborating with the 
National Institutes of Health and that the overall budget for 
the synchrotron light source has been increased by 15 percent. 
But I also understand that is not operating money, that is 
really construction money. I was wondering your reaction. At 
BNL there seems to be great difficulty in meeting the needs of 
the user community who are anxious to take advantage of the 
synchrotron light source. What is DOE's share of the operating 
budget for the national synchrotron light source?
    Dr. Krebs. I think we provide the whole operating budget of 
the synchrotron light source. Indeed, we value the 
synchrotron--NSLS--very highly. It was recommended for 
increases in Basic Energy Science Advisory Committee review; 
and I believe that in 1998 we provided them with additional 
funding, not the full level that BESAC recommended but 
something like two-thirds of the increase; and I will provide 
you with the detail for the record.
    [The information follows:]

                   National Synchrotron Light Source

    The Department of Energy provides the total operating 
budget for the NSLS. As a result of recommendations from the 
Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) based on 1997 
report ``Synchrotron Radiation Sources and Science'' [Professor 
Robert Birgeneau (MIT), Chair; Professor Z.-X. Shen (Stanford), 
Vice Chair], BES provided a $2 million increase in funding for 
operations to NSLS in FY 1998. This rapid action showed our 
commitment to addressing the problems identified by BESAC. We 
provided an approximate cost-of-living increase in FY 2000. 
Through the Birgeneau/Shen study, we identified and addressed 
the most serious problems with our light sources. Furthermore, 
the study identified the growing numbers of users in 
macromolecular crystallography. Partially as a result of that 
report, NIH entered into serious discussions with DOE about how 
they might better serve their community of users. In FY 1999, 
NIH is planning to add funds for beamline upgrades at NSLS and 
has agreed to put an additional $4 million to upgrade the NSLS 
x-ray storage ring itself.

    Dr. Krebs. But in fact they also recommended that increases 
be provided for other of our synchrotron light sources as well, 
and upgrades. And the value of the NIH funding is that they 
will allow us to do upgrades for the biological community where 
there is an intense demand for this kind of facility, 
structural biology.
    Mr. Forbes. I have one other brief question, and then I 
will submit the balance of my questions for the record, Mr. 
Chairman.

                         High Flux Beam Reactor

    For the High Flux Beam Reactor, the monies which have been 
requested or set aside for the High Flux Beam Reactor, is there 
any hope that some of that money, since the High Flux Beam 
Reactor is closed, some of the dollars that are allocated for 
that and of course cannot be spent currently on operation, some 
of those dollars could be used to enhance or expedite to 
whatever small degree that might be the cleanup at the 
laboratory?
    Dr. Krebs. Currently, the funding for--there is $23 million 
worth of funding that is being expended on HFBR-related 
activities at the laboratory today.
    Mr. Forbes. That $20 million is being used for a closed 
down facility?
    Dr. Krebs. For the maintenance and surveillance, for 
modifications and repairs that are necessary, whether we 
restart or shut it down. And so those funds are fully utilized 
in 1999, and approximately the same amount of funding would 
also be required in year 2000 independent of a decision to 
restart or shut down.
    Mr. Forbes. What was the expenditure on the High Flux Beam 
Reactor before it was shut down?
    Dr. Krebs. It was more than $20 million. In fact, what we 
have done as a result of the constraints that were placed on 
the neutron science community, we used--some of those dollars 
to do upgrades at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, a 
small spallation source. We also used it for some of the 
upgrades we are undertaking at the High Flux Isotope Reactor at 
Oak Ridge as well.
    Mr. Forbes. So some of the $20 million is being used at 
other facilities?
    Dr. Krebs. There is not more than $5 million, maybe $6 
million. I would need to get you the exact funding. But, 
basically, we used it to accommodate--to try and prepare to 
accommodate the needs of the neutron science community at other 
facilities.
    [The information follows:]

             High Flux Beam Reactor Funding Before Shutdown

    In FY 1996, the last year of full operation, HFBR was 
funded at a level of $26.3 million. In FY 1997, the funding was 
$34.4 million for HFBR remediation activities. In FY 1998, the 
funding was $22.6 millions. In FY 1999, the funding is expected 
to be $22.6 million and the FY 2000 request is also $22.6 
million. As a result of the unavailability of HFBR, we have 
performed upgrades at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, a 
small spallation source, and the High Flux Isotope Reactor at 
Oak Ridge. These upgrades have been identified in our budget 
requests.

    Mr. Forbes. Is that the kind of funding that needs to come 
to the committee for reprogramming?
    Dr. Krebs. I don't believe that it is within the framework 
of our authorities.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Dr. Krebs.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Latham.

                                Biomass

    Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I will be very 
brief.
    When the Secretary was here, I mentioned about Iowa State 
working on a biorenewables consortium at the Ames lab; and they 
will be looking at agricultural commodities for energy sources; 
and there are some other farm States that also attempted to use 
the crop residue for energy, as an energy source.
    It appears that obviously the cost of going back and 
retrieving it is expensive. I just wondered, while biomass 
really appears to be promising, is there any data available as 
far as cost effectiveness or are there--of harvesting the crop 
residue or are there any particular crops that you have data on 
to show to be of much more value or usable? Maybe not as 
residue but as initial crop?
    Mr. Reicher. Mr. Latham, we are looking at dedicated energy 
crops, switch grass, for example, and looking at all sorts of 
residue from agriculture, waste from corn and the sugar cane 
industry.
    Mr. Latham. That would be post-processing waste? What 
waste?
    Mr. Reicher. This might be waste left in the field, waste 
that comes out of a processing in a factory. There is a whole 
host of waste sources.
    Within the last couple of weeks we have put out a 
solicitation to the corn industry, basically to corn ethanol. 
Today we make ethanol from corn out of the corn kernel itself. 
We have technology that can use the rest of the corn plant, the 
stalk, the leaves, that sort of thing; and we have some of the 
corn ethanol companies that are very interested in taking this 
technology and bolting it onto existing corn ethanol plants and 
be able to make use of the rest of the plant which would 
greatly improve corn ethanol economics and use what, in many 
cases, would be a waste. So that is an example where we can 
make a lot of progress.
    We are also making good progress on using municipal solid 
waste to make ethanol, and that would be a major breakthrough. 
We spend large amounts of money paying to get rid of solid 
waste today, and a plant in New York State is going to 
demonstrate that we could make a lot of progress.
    Mr. Latham. You don't think that I would get any resistance 
from my corn farmers at all?
    Mr. Reicher. If we can grow the whole ethanol business, 
making it out of the corn plant and solid waste, we can do lots 
of good for the ethanol industry and reduce our reliance on 
imported oil. The cheaper you can make it, the more it can 
compete in the market.
    Mr. Latham. The potential market is big enough for everyone 
if it is developed?
    Mr. Reicher. The potential market is potentially endless.
    Mr. Latham. More corn.
    There is a provision to allow fuel use credits to be 
allocated for biodiesel in last year's omnibus appropriation 
bill, and I am curious to know if the Department is considering 
to look at this soybean-based product further and its 
relationship to cleaning up diesel engine emissions in any 
other areas? Where are we?
    Mr. Reicher. We are very interested in the biodiesel area. 
It has some very good potential for using crops from farm 
country. We are in the midst of a rulemaking now on biodiesel, 
and we will have an interim rule out in the next couple of 
months that governs the credits one can get for biodiesel, and 
then we will have a final rule out sometime I believe in the 
fall of this year. So this is going to be a way of really 
pushing biodiesel but, at the same time, making sure that we 
get the energy benefits from it and that we do the right 
accounting of it, so we are very bullish about it.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                      Chairman Packard's Concerns

    Mr. Packard. We now have a vote on, and for the 
subcommittee we have a full committee markup in the full 
committee room.
    Unless there are some urgent questions I would like to wrap 
up with some comments and questions of my own before we have to 
leave for the vote.
    I listened to the questions that Mr. Visclosky had of you, 
Mr. Reicher, in regard to the priorities of the Energy 
Department and where our monies and our emphasis go. I couldn't 
help but notice that we funded the renewable budget to the tune 
of about $399 million last year--no, $336 million, and that 
includes the $60 million in the omnibus bill, and you are 
asking for a 35 percent increase from that. That is of concern, 
of course, with the funds that we have.
    In addition, I noticed also that 20 percent of our 
electricity is coming from nuclear energy and 3,000ths of a 
percent--0.003--percent is coming from photovoltaics and yet 
you are asking for a $54 million budget for photovoltaics and 
that--and only $19 million for nuclear energy. It almost sounds 
like our priorities are in the wrong place in terms of actual 
output of energy. I guess my question is, how do you justify 
that? And I would like it in two sentences.
    Mr. Reicher. We spent in excess of $20 billion on nuclear 
R&D over 45 years to get where we are today. In the case of--I 
will give you the best example that I have at my fingertips. In 
the case of wind, we have spent about $650 million, a tiny 
percentage of that, to get us where we are today. And with 
respect to wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, we are on the 
beginning of an amazing growth curve as we bring these prices 
down; and that is why I think it is so important that we 
continue to fund these.
    I just wanted to say one thing, Mr. Chairman. You cited the 
45 percent increase. We obviously look at the final enacted 
level in the omnibus, and when you look at it there it is a 19 
percent increase.
    I also just wanted to be sure that we could enter the 
previous documents that I referred to into the record.
    Mr. Packard. Of course. Thank you.
    Two or three comments that I want to make.
    One, on nuclear plants, it is going to be very difficult 
for us to see additional nuclear generating plants built in the 
near future and maybe even in the long-term future. I don't 
expect that we will see any major new hydro plants built in our 
lifetime. So I sense that we are moving or will be in the long 
term moving away from hydro, which has been a very efficient 
and very I think environmentally good direction to go, and 
nuclear which we are moving away from those which obviously 
means we are moving in the long term toward fossil fuel; and 
that, of course, is of great concern to me.
    I sense that we need a greater emphasis on building new 
nuclear plants. I know that has almost been heresy in the past, 
but I think we are reaching the point where your Department and 
this committee more and more are going to have put the message 
out that nuclear energy is still a very good direction for us 
to go in this country.
    I would hope that I would live long enough to see a new 
nuclear power plant built in this country. Five years ago I 
would have said that I wouldn't, but I think the attitude is 
changing and minds are changing. Those of us who have some say 
agree about the direction that we should go. I am concerned 
that we are moving away from what we have historically tried to 
move towards supporting, nuclear powers.
    Secondly, I would like to encourage, not just the three of 
you, but the entire Energy Department to seek ways to get 
things done, to improve things and allow agencies move forward 
rather than looking for ways to prevent them from doing their 
work.
    Many of our government agencies--and this is a soapbox of 
mine. Many of our agencies, particularly our regulatory 
agencies, look for ways to fine, to penalize, to prevent, to 
imprison, to entrap, to try to find ways to hurt business and 
the private sector and even sometimes the public sector.
    I would like to see a mind change in our departments, 
particularly our regulatory departments, where it is not to 
find ways to penalize or entrap people in noncompliance but try 
to find ways to help people comply with the rules. No one is 
asking them to break the rules, but particularly in our 
environmental agencies, I have found where it appears that 
their goal is to entrap people into strict obedience and then 
to fine, to penalize, to hurt.
    I would like government to be in the business of trying to 
help people comply with the rules and the regulations and help 
find ways for them to do so, not to put them into lawsuits and 
terrible positions.
    That is an attitudinal change. It needs to start at the top 
of our agencies, but it is desperately needed at the field 
level of our agencies, and I would hope that it could start 
here. I don't think that you are the offenders like I see in 
other agencies, and I have made this pitch before to them.
    But I want you to know that is where I feel government 
people should be working, to help people follow the rules and 
get the work done. We are in the business of helping people 
perform services for our citizens. You are in the business of 
helping people and agencies and organizations and businesses to 
provide services to our people. That is a great service. We 
ought to be in the business of helping them to do so and not 
prevent them from doing so.
    Lastly, one last question of Dr. Krebs. How do we determine 
the projects and science programs that our labs do?
    Dr. Krebs. Within the Office of Science, let me speak to 
that, which is a strong amount of what they are asked to do, 
the big facilities we build are subject to the scrutiny and 
recommendation of the external scientific community. And the--
so we do not proceed with big facilities without external peer 
review; and with respect to the small projects, we also do 
external peer review. We do not place research at these 
laboratories without external peer review.
    [The information follows:]

                      Laboratory Science Missions

    The mission of each of the major laboratories is reviewed 
each year by the Program Secretarial Officers, as part of the 
Institution and Planning process. Currently, the Laboratory 
Operations Board is preparing a Laboratory Profile Report that 
describes the labs' mission.

    Mr. Packard. The reason that I am asking the question is 
maybe to get a message across more than to get an answer to the 
question.
    I am a little concerned about our labs, although the work 
that they do is fine, that they develop projects and science 
that perpetuate themselves. I think the reverse ought to take 
place. I think we ought to determine what kind of science and 
projects need to be done for the good of our country and for 
the good of our citizens, and then determine which labs are 
more suitable to do it. I am concerned that our labs are in the 
business, often, of finding programs to self-perpetuate 
themselves and may not be the best science or the best projects 
that need to be done.
    I would like you to give some thought as to how that can be 
restructured so we determine what our labs ought to be doing, 
rather than the labs coming up with their own projects, thus 
self-perpetuating themselves.
    Lastly, I am very concerned about the lobbying efforts 
going on in the Department of Energy, where we pay our people 
out of taxpayer money within the Department to lobby 
Washington. That needs to stop.
    I think the Department, if they need to do lobbying, they 
need to put that new authority in the budget and hire a 
professional lobbyist to do your job. I hope the day will come 
when we will see no paid staff or paid people in your 
departments that do lobbying, and can that is what they are 
supposed to do in Washington or anywhere else. We would like to 
see that phased out. If you need lobbying, you can request 
authority in your budget to hire professional lobbyists, just 
like any other city or county or agency would do. I don't 
believe that the taxpayers ought to be paying for the lobbyists 
of this Department.
    And I will now close the hearing.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Krebs, Dr. Martha................................................   355
Magwood, W. D., IV...............................................   355
Reicher, Dan.....................................................   355
Richardson, Hon. Bill............................................     1


                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                          Department of Energy

                                                                   Page
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.......................   243
Acceptance of Spent Fuel.........................................    64
Adequacy of Y2K Funding..........................................   190
Advanced Computation Technology Initiative.......................   160
Advisory Committees Budget Information...........................   277
Aging Workforce and Infrastructure at Production Plants..........    27
Aircraft.........................................................   274
Alternative Fuel Automobiles....................................50, 189
Alternatives to Centralized Interim Storage......................    63
American Textiles Partnership....................................   161
Approved Contractor Litigation Costs.............................   320
Balance Between Laboratory and Plant Budgets.....................   213
Biodiesel Rulemaking.............................................    35
Biorenewables Research Consortium................................    34
Brookhaven National Laboratory Employee Concerns.................    48
Brookhaven National Laboratory Environmental Cleanup.............   193
Brookhaven National Laboratory...................................    29
Cancer Research..................................................   195
Characterization of Yucca Mountain...............................   242
Chemical and Biological Weapons............................41, 228, 238
Chiles Commission Report.........................................    27
Civil Service Excepted Authority.................................    84
Cleanup of Nuclear Waste.........................................    47
Closure Fund....................................................37, 219
Conference Attendance............................................   279
Conferences Sponsored by DOE.....................................   279
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs......................   339
Construction Project Management..................................    67
Contract Competition.............................................    79
Contractor Employment Levels.....................................   266
Contractor Support to Congress...................................   315
Control of Soviet Nuclear Materials and Chemical and Biological 
  Weapons........................................................    39
Corporate Management Information Program.........................    25
Cox Committee Report.............................................57, 68
CTBT and Production Plant Maintenance............................   214
CVNX Reactor Design Work.........................................   227
Decommissioning Activities.......................................   200
Decommissioning Costs............................................    43
Defense Education Programs.......................................   223
Department of Energy Leased or Owned Aircraft....................   274
Departmental Administration Questions............................   244
Departmental Foreign Travel......................................   335
Distribution of Public Affairs Federal and Contractor Staff 
  Outside Washington, DC.......................................341, 351
DOE Cancer Research..............................................   195
DOE Management Structure.........................................69, 70
Dual Revalidation................................................   207
Education Funding................................................    31
Education Support for New Mexico.................................    31
Electricity Generation Under Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change....   181
Electricity Restructuring........................................   153
Electrometallurgical Treatment...................................   221
Employees Assigned to the White House............................   244
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.............................   226
Enhanced Benefits to Contractor Employees........................   165
Environment, Health and Safety...................................     5
Environmental Cleanup............................................   150
Environmental Management.......................................219, 220
EPA and NRC Standards............................................    65
External Regulation of DOE Facilities............................    72
Facility Decommissioning.........................................    43
Federal Acquisition Regulation in Contracts......................   163
Federal Employees/M&O Contractor Employees/Support Services 
  Budgets........................................................    85
Federal Research & Development to Address the Threat of Chemical 
  and Biological Weapons.........................................    41
Fleet Automobiles................................................   188
Foreign Energy Technology Programs...............................   336
Foreign Travel...................................................   335
Functional Support Cost Report...................................   252
Fusion Energy Funding............................................    42
Fusion Energy Sciences...........................................   202
FY 2000 Funding Levels...........................................    26
FY 2000 Funding Priorities.......................................    25
GAO Report on Employment for Russian Scientists..................    43
GAO Report on Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................   231
General Counsel..................................................   319
Global Climate Change............................................   162
Headquarters Support Contractors.................................   313
High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory........29, 191
Hispanic-Serving Institutions....................................   321
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.....................   321
Human Resources and Administration Training......................   316
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program (IPP).43, 60, 231, 235
Internal Reprogramming and Use of Prior Year Balances............   248
Kansas City Plant Infrastructure.................................   208
Kyoto Protocol.................................................181, 187
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD)..............   154
Listing of Major Contracts.......................................    81
Litigation Costs.................................................   319
Lobbying Provisions..............................................   167
Long-Term Plan for Production Plants.............................   215
Mail Service Contract............................................   352
Maintaining Production Plant Workforce...........................   216
Management & Operating Contractor Employees Supporting DOE in 
  Washington, DC.................................................    86
Management and Administration Advisory Committees Budget.........   276
Management and Administration Corporate Management Information 
  Program......................................................253, 259
Management and Administration Staffing Levels....................   262
Management and Administration Year 2000 Mission Critical Systems.   261
Management and Operating Contractors in Washington, D.C.........84, 313
Management and Operating Contractors.............................    81
Management Concerns..............................................    38
Management Reform and Improvements...............................    58
Managing our Workforce...........................................     5
Materials Protection, Control and Accounting Program...........225, 239
Mercury Emissions Control Technology.............................   206
National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Power Sources.............    51
National Security................................................     3
Naval Reactors...................................................   227
Next Generation Internet.........................................   155
Noncompetitive Awards............................................    76
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) Program.................   186
Nuclear Waste Cleanup............................................     5
Number and Type of Alternative Fuel Vehicles at the Department of 
  Energy.........................................................    50
Office of Public Affairs.........................................   340
Office of the Secretary..........................................   244
Oil Imports Into the United States...............................   338
Pantex Plant Infrastructure......................................   209
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.....................   156
Performance Based Contracts Energy Audits........................    55
Personnel Management.............................................    84
Pit Production...................................................   224
Power Marketing Administration...................................    33
Prime Contractor Employment by Site and Program..................   267
Priorities.......................................................    25
Privatization of Nuclear Deactivation Projects...................   198
Production Plant Maintenance...................................212, 215
Production Plant Workforce.......................................   216
Programs to Aid Russian Weapons Scientists.......................    60
Public Affairs Staff in DOE......................................   341
Public Law 105-245, Section 301(b)...............................    79
Public Law 105-245, Section 302..................................   163
Public Law 105-245, Section 303..................................   164
Public Law 105-245, Section 305..................................   166
Public Law 105-245, Section 501..................................   167
Purchase Power and Wheeling....................................177, 241
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National 
  Laboratory....................................................30, 194
Release of Prior Year Appropriation..............................   229
Renewable Energy Costs To Be Competitive.........................   184
Renewable Energy Budget Increases................................   179
Report of Uncosted Balances......................................   247
Reprogrammings..................................................44, 248
Richland Reprogramming...........................................44, 59
Roll Call Vote...................................................    24
Savannah River Plant Infrastructure Investment...................   210
Schedule ``C'' Employees.........................................   310
Science Education..........................................31, 158, 223
Science..........................................................   222
Scientific Simulation Initiative...............................203, 222
Section 3161 Benefits..........................................164, 197
Small Business Access to Cleanup Contracts.......................   150
Solar and Renewable Energy Competitive Grants....................   233
Solar and Renewable Funding Versus Nuclear Energy Funding........    48
Solar and Renewable Funding......................................     4
Solar Energy Competition for Grants.............................55, 233
Solar Renewable Investment Return................................    54
Solar Roofs Program..............................................    32
Staffing Levels..................................................   262
Statement--Oral--Secretary Richardson............................     3
Statement--Written--Secretary Richardson.........................     7
Stockpile Stewardship............................................     4
Supercomputing Initiatives.......................................    83
Tokamak Decommission.............................................    42
Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor....................................201, 204
Training Costs...................................................   316
Tritium Production..............................................75, 205
Tritium..........................................................   217
Use of Renewable Power at the National Renewable Energy 
  Laboratory.....................................................    53
Viability Assessment.............................................    66
Waste Acceptance Storage and Transportation......................   230
Waste Management Program.........................................     5
Wind Energy Tax Credit...........................................    34
Worker Health and Safety.........................................    74
Worker Retraining--Paper, Allied-Industrial and Energy 
  International Union............................................   197
Working Capital Fund.............................................   352
Y-12 Plant Infrastructure........................................   211
Y2K Funding......................................................   190
Y2K Mission Critical Systems.....................................   261
Yucca Mountain EPA Standards.....................................    65
Yucca Mountain Funding...........................................   229
Yucca Mountain Interim Storage...................................    63
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository................36, 45, 230, 242

                      Energy Resources and Science

Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative.............................   800
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems............................780, 782
Advisory Committees Funding Profile..............................   671
Aluminum Matrix Composite........................................   777
AmeriFlux Program................................................   822
Anti-Lobbying Prohibition........................................   670
Arizona State University.........................................   869
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement................................   820
Basic Energy Sciences..........................................825, 828
Bates Accelerator................................................   813
Biography--Martha Krebs..........................................   398
Biography--Dan W. Reicher........................................   437
Biography--William Magwood.......................................   359
Biological and Environmental Research..........................819, 822
Biomass Feedstock Development Centers............................   732
Biomass...................................................501, 728, 736
Black Liquor Gasification........................................   880
BPX-AT...........................................................   851
Broad-Based Solicitations........................................   693
Brookhaven National Laboratory General Facilities..............839, 914
Brookhaven National Laboratory Renewable Energy Programs.........   922
Budget Priorities for FY 2000....................................   469
Chairman Packard's Concerns......................................   502
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI)......................   511
Co-generation Plants.............................................   728
Commitment to Nuclear Research...................................   482
Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Awards........................   690
Computational and Technology Research............................   840
Coordinated Biomass Energy Research and Development Plan.........   729
Coordination Between the Office of Science and Departmental 
  Missions.......................................................   802
Cost Trends for Renewable Energy.................................   884
Departmental Staffing............................................   510
Educational Initiatives at the Department of Energy..............   915
Electric Energy Systems and Storage--Transmission Reliability....   771
Electricity Deregulation.........................................   887
Electricity from Renewables......................................   885
Electricity Restructuring........................................   746
Electrometallurgical Technology................................792, 899
Employment Levels................................................   475
Energy Research Analyses Evaluations.............................   844
Energy Storage Systems...........................................   776
Environment, Safety and Health at Argonne National Laboratory..476, 477
Environmental Concerns...........................................   720
Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy........................   720
Environmental Meteorology Program................................   819
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
 (EPSCOR).................................................487, 864, 873
Facilities Operations Budget.....................................   812
Facility Operations..............................................   806
Fast Flux Test Facility..........................................   798
Federal Standard for Direct Current Power Sources..............919, 921
Fellowship Program...............................................   486
Funding for Non-Governmental Organizations--Office of Nuclear 
  Energy.........................................................   612
Funding for Non-Governmental Organizations--Office of Science....   582
Funding for Non-Governmental Organizations--Solar and Renewables.   615
Funding Increases--Solar and Renewables...................679, 681, 687
Funding Increases................................................   677
Fusion Alternatives..............................................   848
Fusion Energy Sciences..........................847, 851, 862, 900, 908
Geothermal Heat Pump Deployment..................................   763
Geothermal Resources.............................................   923
Global Change Education Program..................................   821
Global Change Research Education Program.........................   821
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.....................   906
High Energy Physics..............................................   812
High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laborat488, 490, 500, 909
High Flux Beam Reactor Funding Before Shutdown...................   501
High Flux Beam Reactor.........................................839, 909
High Temperature Superconductivity........................773, 774, 825
How Funds are Spent--Office of Nuclear Energy....................   537
How Funds are Spent--Office of Science...........................   513
How Funds are Spent--Solar and Renewables........................   543
Human Genome Program......................................397, 815, 883
Human Interactions...............................................   823
Hydrogen Projects................................................   765
Hydrogen Research Coordination...................................   768
Hydrogen..................................................765, 768, 828
Impact of Bates Laboratory Decision..............................   491
Implementation and Oversight of Environmental, Safety & Health at 
  Argonne National Lab...........................................   477
Increases in Programs, Construction Projects and Activities......   506
Integrated Process Development...................................   731
International Spending--Office of Nuclear Energy.................   659
International Spending--Office of Science........................   658
International Spending--Solar and Renewables.....................   661
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)........851, 855
Isotope Production Facility at LANL..............................   801
Isotope Support................................................797, 799
Laboratory Science Missions......................................   504
LANSCE Construction..............................................   825
Large Multi-Year Projects--Solar and Renewables..................   695
Leased Space at NREL.............................................   760
Magnetic Fusion Research Funding History.........................   847
Management Improvements in the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
  Renewable Energy...............................................   435
Management of Grants.............................................   669
Markets for Photovoltaics........................................   722
Medical Isotope Program at Brookhaven National Laboratory........   918
Merit Review Procedures for Grants...............................   513
Million Solar Roofs..............................................   725
Mound EIS........................................................   783
Multi-Year Funding of Projects...................................   695
NASA Missions....................................................   780
National Institute for Global and Environmental Change (NIGEC).817, 877
National Renewable Energy Laboratory...........................760, 762
National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National 
  Laboratory...................................................499, 913
Neutrinos at the Main Injector Experiment........................   814
New Characterization of the Department's Research & Development 
  Portfolios.....................................................   803
New Nuclear Power Plants.........................................   893
Next Generation Internet.........................................   856
Next Generation Wind Turbine.....................................   741
Non-Governmental Organizations Funding...........................   582
Nuclear Energy Accomplishments...................................   356
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) Program.................   896
Nuclear Energy Projections.......................................   478
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative NERI).......................789, 898
Nuclear Energy...................................................   907
Nuclear Physics--Bates Accelerator...............................   813
Nuclear Power Plant Costs........................................   481
Office of Science Developmental Results..........................   394
Office of Science FY 2000 Funding Request........................   395
Partnerships for Academic-Industrial Research....................   827
Photovoltaic Energy Systems....................................724, 890
Photovoltaic Research & Development Program......................   869
Photovoltaic Solar Electric Plant................................   890
Plasma-Based Radioactive Waste Separation........................   853
Plutonium-238 Needs..............................................   782
Program Direction--Solar and Renewables..........................   778
Program Direction Increases......................................   475
Program Taxes--Office of Science.................................   804
Program Terminations.............................................   662
Progress in Photovoltaic and Other Renewable Energy..............   871
Promoting Renewable Energy to Native American Tribes.............   867
Public Outreach Funding..........................................   693
Radiochemistry Program...........................................   786
Record of Decision Delayed for the High Flux Beam Reactor........   490
Regional Biomass Energy Program..................................   733
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laborato491, 912
Renewable Energy Production Incentice Program.............488, 744, 865
Renewable Indian Energy Resource.................................   770
Request for Proposals............................................   668
Request to Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--Solar and 
  Renewables.....................................................   901
Roadmaps.........................................................   802
Science Education Program......................................483, 866
Scientific Simulation Initiative...............................396, 841
Secretary's Decision to Restart High Flux Beam Reactor...........   490
Site Descriptions and Narratives.................................   687
Site Descriptions for Solar and Renewables Programs..............   688
Solar and Renewable Investment Accountability..................491, 497
Solar and Renewables Budget Overview.............................   434
Solar and Renewable Increases....................................   502
Solar Buildings Research.........................................   903
Solar Cell Technology............................................   868
Salar Energy Programs.....................................722, 903, 904
Solar Energy Support--Electricity Restructuring................746, 753
Solar International Programs...................................750, 753
Solar Technology Transfer........................................   759
Spallation Neutron Source.............395, 486, 832, 835, 838, 857, 861
Staffing Levels..................................................   510
Statement--Oral--Dan Reicher.....................................   433
Statement--Oral--Dr. Martha Krebs................................   394
Statement--Oral--William Magwood.................................   356
Statement--Written--Dan Reicher..................................   438
Statement--Written--Dr. Martha Krebs.............................   399
Statement--Written--William Magwood..............................   360
Superconductivity................................................   925
Termination Costs--Office of Nuclear Energy...............666, 792, 795
Terminations--Office of Science..................................   662
Terminations--Solar and Renewables...............................   667
Test Reactor Area Landlord.......................................   787
TFTR Cost Savings................................................   485
Tokamak Decontamination and Decommissioning Cost Savings.........   485
Tokamak Decontamination and Decommissioning......................   484
Transmission Reliability.........................................   771
Travel Funding for Solar and Renewables Energy Program...........   755
U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation..........................   750
University of Texas..............................................   908
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support...................   785
Unrealistic Funding Increases--Solar and Renewables..............   677
Use of Facilities by Federal Agencies Other Than the Department 
  of Energy......................................................   811
User Facilities..................................................   906
Wind Energy.....................................739, 741, 888, 905, 906
Wind Farm Construction Costs.....................................   479
Y2K and Next Generation Internet.................................   856

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Ad Valorem Tax Refunds by Kansas Natural Gas Producers...........  1076
Administration Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan........  1061
Alternative Licensing Process for Hydro Projects.................  1072
Authorizing and Monitoring Energy Projects.....................933, 939
Budget Justification for FY 2000 Request.........................   942
Consumer Impact of Electric Power Industry Restructuring.........  1063
Consumer Impact of Natural Gas Industry Restructuring............  1075
Dam Safety.......................................................  1073
Developing Employees.............................................   940
Electricity Price Spikes.........................................  1068
Environmental Review Offices.....................................  1068
FERC First.......................................................  1054
Gas Pipeline Certification.......................................   934
Gas Policy Initiative............................................   931
Hydropower Administration........................................   935
Industry Changes Challenge the Commission........................   930
Industry Structure...............................................   932
Information Technology Improvements..............................  1059
Management Review Initiatives....................................  1054
Managing Information Technology..................................   940
Merger Review Policy.............................................  1070
Natural Gas and Electric Power Program Budgets...................  1059
Overview.........................................................   928
Promoting Competitive Markets....................................   939
Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Receipts.........................  1077
Protecting Customers.............................................   933
Public Power Reforms.............................................  1062
Questions and Answers for the Record.............................  1054
Regional Transmission Organizations...........................931, 1065
Regulating Energy Markets........................................   930
Reliability of the Electric Power Grid...........................  1066
Resolving Disputes...............................................   939
Statement for the Record, James J. Hoecker, Chairman.............   928
Strategic Planning...............................................   939
Year 2000 Software Problem.......................................  1060

                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS)....................  1105
Appropriations Legislation.......................................  1150
Bilateral and Multilateral Activities............................  1113
Budget and Performance Plan............................1133, 1159, 1357
Budget Highlights................................................  1088
Cross-cutting functions with Other Government Agencies...........  1347
Decommissioning..............................................1110, 1269
Enforcement Program....................................1095, 1196, 1249
Export Licensing.................................................  1112
External Regulation of Department of Energy..................1106, 1252
Fuel Facilities Licensing and Inspection.........................  1233
Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Program....................  1107
High Level Waste.............................................1108, 1262
Inspector General Activities...........................1122, 1147, 1311
International Activities.........................1111, 1114, 1147, 1278
International Safety Conventions.................................  1114
Investigations...................................1126, 1197, 1250, 1319
Key External Factors.............................................  1362
Legislative Program Projections..................................  1374
Low Level Waste..................................................  1268
License and User Fees..................................1090, 1390, 1411
License Transfers................................................  1100
Management and Support.................................1115, 1147, 1286
Materials Safety.......................................1102, 1146, 1220
Medical Regulation...............................................  1104
Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX)...........................................  1105
Nuclear Waste Safety...................................1107, 1147, 1254
Performance Assessment.................................1092, 1179, 1189
Planning, Budgeting and Performance Management Process.1084, 1143, 1356
Probabilistic Risk Assessment....................................  1395
Reactor Inspection...............................................  1187
Reactor Licensing............................................1096, 1181
Reactor License Renewal................................1099, 1186, 1392
Reactor Safety...................................1091, 1101, 1145, 1170
Reimbursable Work Agreements.....................................  1376
Report to Congress on Drug Testing...............................  1375
Research.....................................................1242, 1399
Risk-Informed Performance-Based Regulation.......................  1091
Spent Fuel Storage...........................................1102, 1236
State Programs...................................................  1241
Strategic Plan...................................................  1164
Streamlining the Organization....................................  1086
Uranium Recovery Licensing and Inspection....................1261, 1275
Written Statement of:
    Shirley Ann Jackson..........................................  1081
    Hubert T. Bell...............................................  1120
Verification and Validation of Measured Values...................  1339
Year 2000 Implementation.....................................1115, 1124

                                
